f LIBRARY OF CON(^RESS. # 



^Ui\ITED:STATES OF AMERICA. J 



WATSOS''S 



THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



DEFENDED; • 



THE TEACHINGS OF TEANSCENDENTAL PHILOSOrHY SHOWN 

TO BE AT VARIANCE WITH SCRIPTURE AND 

MATTER OF FACT; 

AND 

t:b^ bible proved to be complete in itself, bote 

IN TE AGEING AND EVIDENCE. 



by/ 

KEY. JOHJST LEYIJSTGTOISr. 



" The •world by wisdom [(TO(pias'\ knew not God."— 1 Cob. i, 21. 
" The entrance of thy word giveth light."—FSALM cxix, 130. 



FOR SALE BY 

T. K. ADAMS, 90 WOODWAED AYEKTTE, DETEOIT. 

BARNES & BURR, NEW YORK. 

1863. 




■./f./Pi^s 



^^: 



N-K 






Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 18G3, by 

JOHN F. TEOW, 

In the Clerk's office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern 

District of New York. 



2 3 y 



lY 



JOHN F. TROW, 

IRDJTEB, BTBBEOTYPER, AND ELECTROTYPEK, 

46, 48, & 60 Greene Street, 
New York. 



\ . , 



PREFACE 



When we read in the Quarterly Review the article 
which finally moved us to write the following pages, 
we confidently expected to see replies from strong men 
occupying the position of watchmen upon the walls of 
our Zion ; but our expectations have been entirely dis- 
appointed ; for although nearly twelve months have 
passed away since its appearing, nothing has appeared 
save notices of approval, and some of these from men 
of high standing in our Church. These approving no- 
tices on the part of some, and entire silence on the part 
of all others, sufficiently indicate the prevalence of the 
sentiments therein contained, and to which we have felt 
it our duty to object. We are fully aware, too, that the 
teachings here opposed are far more congenial with the 
popular sentiment of the day, than are the teachings 
which we oppose to them. ISTor are we ignorant of the 
fact, that they are multitudinous who recognize no 
authority but reason^ and no God but nature^ which of 



4: PEEFACE. 

course, are defined to be anything, and everytliing, 
according to the whims of their worshippers. From 
this class it is not at all likely that our little perform- 
ance will have many admirers ; though we still indulge 
the liope that it may be useful to some of them. 
Eyerything considered, we confess we are forcibly re- 
minded of the well-known proverb, Athanasius contra 
mundum. But while the opposition in each case may 
be similar, the parties opposed are very difi*erent ; yet, 
even this does not discourage us when we remember 
that truth, " God hath chosen the weak things of this 
world to confound the things which are mighty." 
Resting here, and merely claiming credit for sincerity 
of belief and honesty of purpose, and simply desiring 
a candid criticism, we commit the following thoughts 
to the wide, wide world of mind, trusting that by the 
blessing of God, to whose care we commend them, they 
will battle successfully with error, and exert a salutary 
influence on that world of mind in all time to come. 

To those with whom I have felt it iny duty to join 
issue, I have the kindest feeling, and cheerfully con- 
cede to them what I claim for myself, sincerity of be- 
lief and honesty of purpose. 

In view of the variety and difficulty of the subjects 
discussed in the following x^^g^s, it would be folly to 
claim, or expect, that there is no mistake ; but whether 
the mistakes be many or few, we have as yet failed to 



PREFACE. 5 

discover them. To mere fault-finders we have nothing 
to say : they are a class of people of whom no one has 
a higKopinion, and their mere fanlt-finding is utterly 
unworthy of notice. 

To those who are not acquainted with Watson's 
Theological Institutes, and who do not feel particularly 
interested in their defence, a few of the following pages 
may not be very interesting ; with this exception, 
however, the subjects discussed are so various and im- 
portant that their discussion cannot fail to be interesting 
to all. 

It is quite evident that most of the views opposed 
in the following pages are becomings increasingly popu- 
lar ; and it is equally evident that they are utterly ir- 
reconcilable with those views hitherto denominated 
orthodox ; therefore, whichever side is right, the sooner 
the issue is joined the better. , 

We have already mentioned " Fleming's Yocabulary 
of Philosophy," and will here acknowledge our in- 
debtedness to that excellent little volume, both for 
thoughts and definitions. 

John Levington. 

Saline, March 27, 1863. 



WATSON'S THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 
AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 



• ♦•■ 



CHAPTEE I. 

The first article in the Methodist Quarterly Meview for 
April, 1862, is entitled "Metaphysics of Watson's Insti- 
tutes." This title would indicate that Watson's Meta- 
physics 07ily^ are involved in the discussion ; but this is 
not the case, for his theological teachings are deeply in- 
volved, as we shall soon see. It is not this article alone 
that moves us to write this defence ; certainly we would 
not make such an efibrt merely to refute the views of an 
individual. The teachings to which we object are, in the 
main, and claim to be, those of a certain school of phi- 
losophy, and are presented to us as some of the last and 
best discoveries of philosophical research. These views 
are, and always have been popular with the sceptical classes 
of society ; but of late, if we mistake not, they are becoming 
more and more popular amongst other and very different 
classes of society. These, and other facts which will be 
called forth in the course of our investigations, are not only 
sufficient to justify us in attempting this defence, but will, 
we trust, secure the deep attention of every lover of truth, 
on whatever side the truth may be supposed to lie, seeing 



8 watson'^ theological institutes 

we take the ground that the teachings which we oppose 
are at variance with Scripture and matter of fact, and that 
to a very serious extent, as we expect to show. 

The author of the article under consideration, after 
some preliminary remarks, proceeds thus : 

" That we may clearly apprehend the* philosophical 
views of Mr. Watson, and fairly estimate their influence 
on his theology, it will be necessary that we glance at the 
systems of philosophy which were prevalent and influential 
in his day. There are two schools of philosophy which 
may be said to have divided and given direction to the 
philosophic thought of the last century : the Sensational, or 
Empirical, and the Transcendental, or Rational, Their 
representatives respectively may be found in Locke and 
Kant : Locke at the head of the Sensational, Kant at the 
head of the Transcendental School." 

After some remarks upon the prevailing and distin- 
guishing tenets of those schools, which tenets will be no- 
* ticed in due time, our reviewer reaches his first conclusion 
thus : " So much being preniised, we have now no difiiculty 
in determining Mr. Watson's relations to the prevailing 
schools of philosophy. Unquestionably he attaches him- 
self to the system of Locke ; he was a disciple of the 
Empirical School." 

IS^ow we decidedly object to this mode of procedure ; 
we hold that Watson's Listitutes should be tried upon their 
own merits ; it is a review of " Watson's Metaphysics " 
that is undertaken, not the philosophic schools of his day. 
Moreover, it is doing Watson a gross injustice to represent 
him, in the entire absence of evidence, as being led by 
Locke, or by any other man or number of men ; and it is 
calculated even to prejudice the reviewer and his readers 
against Watson, at the very commencement of the investi- 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 9 

gation. The deep-thinking, lofty-minded, self-made Wat- 
son, is the last man that we should suspect of being ^ed, 
even by " the over-towering and all-pervading philosophy 
of Locke." So far from this, it seems quite evident that 
one special object of his mission was to rescue the great 
principles of religion out of the hands of bold, vain, specu- 
lative, and sceptical philosophers, a work for which he Avas 
admirably adapted, and in which he was gloriously suc- 
cessful. Nor is his work done ; we have strong confidence 
that his Institutes will do in this country and age what 
they did in his own. And so far was he from being led 
by Locke,^ that he joined issue with him on the subject 
of government, which that philosopher and his followers 
called " the social compact." This idea of the man whose 
" imperial name ruled supreme in the English Universities 
and schools of learning," Mr. Watson boldly pronounced 
" a pure fiction." He quotes this same philosopher approv- 
ingly in. the following instances, viz., as to his definition of 
moral good and evil ; as to the necessity of divine author- 
ity to enforce moral precepts ; and as to his statement that 
the bulk of mankind have neither leisure nor capacity for 
close, consecutive reasoning and demonstration. More than 
this we do no-t find that he quotes this great man at all. 
Why then is it asserted, " unquestionably he attaches him- 
self to the system of Locke." He did with the teachmg 
of Locke just what he did with that of all other men : he 
indorsed what he thought was right, and rejected what he 
thought was wrong. Li proof of this we adduce a single 
fact just here. ■ Having examined the Institutes with refer- 
ence to this very thing, we find, if we count right, that he 
quotes from as many as three hundred leading systems, 
schools, and individuals ; giving us their leading philo- 
sophical and theological views, or principles, and, at the 
1* 



10 watson's theological institutes 

same time, rejecting or indorsing according as he approves 
or (Jisapproves ; and giving us his reasons for so doing. 
The systems, schools, and persons thus quoted, flourished 
ill different countries, and at different times, from the ear- 
liest period of history to his own times ; nor does he hesi- 
tate to dissent from those whom he esteemed and loved 
most, as will be seen by all who carefully read his " Insti- 
tutes," " Expositions," and published sermons. 

But having declared Watson to be " a sensationalist, a 
disciple of the empirical school," he is made accountable 
for the teachings of that school, and of every individual 
belonging to it ; hence it is quite an easy matter to make 
out a bill of charges. The appellation itself, too, will assist 
very much in making out such a bill. Empiric : Latin, 
empiricus / Greek, empeirikos^ that is, one who makes ex- 
periments ; a quack, who, being destitute of scientific skill, 
merely experimentizes. Hence this school, according to 
our reviewer (Review, p. 182), "Holds that all simple ideas 
existing in the human mind are the direct and only result 
of sensation, and that all our knowledge is derived from 
experience. Not only the matter of our ideas, but also 
their form / not merely the occasion of our ideas, but their 
cause is from without. The mind itself does not supply 
one element of truth. It has no standards of truth within 
itself. Nor does it, of itself, affirm any first principles, any- 
primitive cognitions, judgments, or beliefs which are neces- 
sary to the attainment of truth. The human mind is an 
empty vessel, into which our sensations — a heterogeneous 
mixture — are poured from the external world, upon which 
the mind itself exerts no modifying influence, does not even 
give a color to the liquid, but simply retains it in memory 
until it shall crystallize into the classifications of science. 
Or, to employ the favorite figure of Locke himself, 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 1% 

the mind is a ' tabula rasa,' a blank sheet of paper, void 
of all characters, and without any ideas, on which the 
external world, by a species of photography, writes itsown 
images, and those which bear a strong resemblance natu- 
rally blend so as to form species and genera, the highest 
generalization becoming the apex of all science. Jfan, 
therefore, has 7io ideas of right and wrong, of duty, of 
o,ccoiintahility, of retribution, of immortality, or of God, 
except as derived from without. This school of philosophy 
landed, as indeed it must inevitably land, in pure material- 
ism, and numbers among its disciples, or, more properly, its 
high priests, such writers as Hartley, Priestley, Combe, and 
Aug. Comte." Such was the school of which Watson was 
a disciple. Such were his fellow disciples and high priests, 
and such the tendency of the whole " that it landed, as 
indeed it must inevitably land, in pure materialism." The 
reviewer, however, very kindly apologizes for Watson thus : 
"It would ill become us to complain that Mr. Watson 
should have entertained these views. They were the pre- 
vailing opinions of his country and age. They were enter- 
tained by Locke, Ellis, Leland, Horsley, and other equally 
distinguished and honored names. Watson has, at least, 
this advantage — he stands amid illustrious men. Yet we 
can ill conceal our regrets. His design was noble and 
praiseworthy. He sought to prove the necessity of oral 
revelation, and vindicate for it the honor of furnishing all 
our knowledge of God, duty, and immortality ; but in thus 
attempting to build up a strong presumption in favor of 
revealed religion by rejecting the intuitions of the human 
mind, and casting doubt upon the veracity of our faculties, 
the foundations of all truth are loosened and unsettled ; 
yea, the very fundamental truths upon which we must 
plant our argument in demonstrating the truth of a reve- 



13 watson's theological institutes 

lation from God ; and the inquiring mind is cast afloat upon 
an open sea of doubt." Poor Watson ! lie meant well, 
but, alas ! by his teachings " the foundations of all truth 
are loosened and unsettled; yea, the very fundamental 
truths (I had supposed that these were included in all 
truth) ; and the inquiring mind is cast afloat upon an open 
sea of doubt." (P. 186.) 

Now, on the part of the reviewer, this apology may be 
very kind, but we respectfully decline its acceptance ; not 
only because the charges are utterly untrue, and, conse- 
quently, the apology uncalled for, but because we consider 
it little, if anything, better than an insult. Mr. Watson is 
prejudged, condemned, and apologized for, even before his 
case is examined. A certain school and certain men are 
represented as holding certain views, which we do not here 
pause to pronounce right or wrong, and Watson and those 
men are declared to be disciples of this school, and empi- 
rics and sensationalists, whose principles are erroneous in 
the last degree, so much so that the whole "landed, as in- 
deed it must inevitably land, in pure materiahsm." Thus 
Watson is placed in company with these men, simply, it 
would seem, that with them he may be condemned. 

It is necessary just here, we think, to give some atten- 
tion to appellations and terms^ in the use of which the re- 
viewer is very faulty. He assumes, for instance, that the 
appellations sensationalist and empiric are interchange- 
able, as being of synonymous import. Hence the school to 
which he assumes Watson attaches himself, he denominates 
" the sensational or em]3irical," and is indifierent, conse- 
quently, as to which of the appellations he applies to Wat- 
son. He should know that these appellations are not 
synonymous and, consequently, not interchangeable. Em- 
piricism is based on experience^ and sensationalism on sen^ 



ANB THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 13 

sation alone : the latter is what Fichte calls " the dirt 
philosophy." "The empirical philosophers," says Bacon, 
" are like pismires, they only lay up and use their store. 
The rationalists are like the sjDiders, they spin all out of 
their own bowels. But give me a philosopher, who, like 
the bee, hath a middle faculty, gathering from abroad, but 
digesting that which is gathered by his own virtue." How 
much Watson resembles the bee in the particulars here 
specified may be seen in the facts which we have already 
stated, and will be seen still more clearly in facts to be 
stated in the course of our investigations ; so that in these 
particulars, at least, Watson is one of those philosophers 
whom Bacon so much admired. Mr. C. is also at fault in 
using certain terms as though their meaning were fixed and 
agreed upon by philosophers generally, whereas this is very 
far from being the fact. Hence Mr. C. has no right to con- 
clude Mr. W.'s views merely from his rejecting or indorsing 
those terms ; it is necessary to specify the sense in which 
he understands the terms indorsed or rejected, seeing dif- 
ferent philosophers use them with different latitudes of 
meaning. 

Intuition^ for instance, is a word which conveys differ- 
ent ideas, as used by different philosophers. As it is used 
by some, neither Locke nor Watson would object to it ; 
while they utterly reject it in the sense in which others use 
it. In his " Essay on the Human Understanding," Locke 
says : " Sometimes the mind perceives the agreement or 
disagreement of two ideas immediately by themselves, 
without the intervention of any other ; and this, I think, 
we may call intuitive knowledge." He gives other in- 
stances of what he thinks may be called the intuitive ; yet 
Mr. C. represents both Locke and Watson as denying all 
" intuitive beliefs." Taylor, in his " Elements of Thought," 



14: watson's theological institutes 

says : " What we know or comprehend, as soon as we per- 
ceive or attend to it, we are said to know by intuition / 
things which we know by intuition cannot be made more 
certain by arguments than they are at first. We know by 
intuition that all the parts of a thing together are equal to 
the whole of it. Axioms are propositions known by intui- 
tion.'''' 

" Intuition has been applied by Dr. Beattie and others, 
not only to the power by which we perceive the truth of 
the axioms of geometry, but to that by which we recognize 
the authority of the fundamental laws of belief, when we 
hear them enunciated in language. My only objection to 
this use of the word is, that it is a departure from common 
practice ; according to which, if I be not mistaken, the 
proper objects of intuition are propositions analogous to 
the axioms prefixed to Euclid's Elements. In some other 
respects this innovation might perhaps be regarded as an 
improvement on the very limited and imperfect vocabulary 
of which we are able to avail ourselves in our present 
discussion." (Stewart's " Elements.") 

" Perception is singular, incomplex, and immediate, i. e., 
is intuition. When I see a star, or hear the tones of a 
harp, the perceptions are immediate, incomplex, and inttii- 
tive. This is the good old logical meaning of the word 
i7ituition. In our philosophic Avritings, however, intuitive 
and intuition have come to be applied solely to proposi- 
tions ; it is here extended to the first elements of percep- 
tion, whence such propositions spring. Again, intuitio7i, m 
English, is restricted to perceptions a priori; but the 
established logical use and wont applies the word to every 
incomplex representation whatever ; and it is left for fur- 
ther and more dee]) inquiry to ascertain what intuitions arc 
founded on observation and experience, and what arise 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 15 

from ct priori sources." (Semple, " Introduction to Meta- 
phys. of Ethics.") According to this philosopher there are 
" i?itiiitions " which " are founded on observation and 
experience," but it requires " further and more deep in- 
quiry " to distinguish them and such as " arise from a 
priori sources." 

*' Besides its original and proper meaning (as a visual 
perception)," says Sir William Hamilton, "it has been 
employed to denote a kind of apprehension and a kind 
of judgments 

" Intuition,^^ says Mansel, " is used in the extent of the 
German Anschauung, to include all the products of the 
perceptive (external or internal) and imaginative faculties ; 
every act of consciousness, in short, of which the imme- 
diate is an i^idividual, thing, state, or act of mind, pre- 
sented under the condition of distinct existence in space 
or titne." 

Such are some of the definitions and explanations whi^h 
different philosophers give us of that thing called intuition, 
the meaning of which Mr. C. assumes to be fixed and 
agreed upon by the philosophers who use it, but with what 
reason the above quotations will show; and, what is not 
less marvellous, he is not only confident in the use of it 
himself, but is quite out of patience with Watson, because 
the views of that writer do not exactly quadrate with his 
own in reference to the use of a term to which philosophers 
attach so many shades of meaning. Ignoring all this, 
together with the fact that Locke himself specifies what he 
says may be called " intuitive knowledge," Mr. C. assures 
us that Mr. Watson teaches that " reason does not appre- 
hend a priori, self-evident, necessary truth." What Mr. 
Watson teaches concerning reason we shall see in due 
time ; at present we shall only glance at the term innate. 



16 watson's theological institutes 

leaving the other leading terms to be taken up in order as 
we shall proceed with our investigations. 

Innate. " There is a great deal of difference," says 
Locke, " between an innate law and a law of nature ; 
between something imprinted on our minds in their very 
original, and something that we, being ignorant of, may 
attain to the knowledge of by the use and application of 
our natural faculties. And I think they equally forsake 
the truth who, running into contrary extremes, either 
affirm an innate law^ or deny that there is a law knowable 
by the light of oiature, without the help of positive reve- 
lation." 

The following from Dr. Reid seems to be quite in 
harmony with the above : " Of the various powers and 
faculties we possess, there are some which nature seems 
both to have planted and reared, so as to have left nothing 
to human industry. Such are the powers which we have 
in common with the brutes, and which are necessary to the 
preservation of the individual, or the continuance of the 
kind. There are other powers, of which nature hath only 
planted the seeds in our minds, but hath left the rearing 
of them to human culture." When speaking of natural 
rights, the doctor uses imiate as synonymous with natural. 

" Among modern philosophers it would be difficult to 
name any who held the doctrine in the form in which it 
has been attacked by Locke. In calling some of our ideas 
innate they seem merely to have used this word as synony- 
mous with natural^ and applied it, as Hutcheson thinks 
the ancients did, to certain ideas which men, as human 
or rational beings, necessarily and universally entertain." 
(Fleming's "Vocabulary of Philosophy.") 

" Though it appears not that Ave have any innate ideas 
or formed notions or principles laid in by nature, ante- 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 17 

cedently to the exercise of our senses or understanding ; 
yet it must be granted that we were born with the natural 
faculty whereby we actually discern the agreement or 
disagreement of some notions, so soon as we have the 
notions themselves, as, that we can or do think, that there- 
fore we ourselves are ; that one and two make three, that 
gold is not silver, nor ice formally water ; that the whole 
is greater than its part, <fec., and if we should set ourselves 
to do it, we cannot deliberately and seriously doubt of its 
being so. This we may call intuitive knowledge^ or natural 
certainty wrought into our very make and constitution." 
(Oldfield, " Essay on Reason.") 

The above quotations will suffice to show with what 
propriety Mr. C. uses these terms as though their meaning 
were fixed and agreed upon by philosophers. Of course 
the arguments and objections built upon such assumptions 
are futile and vain. The following are Mr. C.'s views of 
man's innate or intuitive powers, as given in the article 
under review; see pages 183, 184, 197, 205, and 206 : 

" There are specific ./brms into which human thought 
must necessarily develop itself, just as a grain of wheat 
must necessarily develop itself into ' the blade, and the 
ear, and full corn in the ear,' or an acorn develop into the 
majestic oak." . . ^ . . " The human intelligence is con- 
figured and correlated to eternal principles of order, and 
right, and good, as they exist in the Infinite Intelligence. 
Man is the offspring and image of God. And when a 
principle or an act is apprehended by tlie understanding, 
the mind passes a judgment upon the relation of that 
principle or act to these laws of order and right and good." 

" Man is so constituted by the great Architect' of 

his mental being — God has imposed upon his intelligence 
such laws of thought as determine him to form the idea of 



18 watson's theological institutes 

God, of right and wrong, of duty, and of accountability." 

"As the vital and rudimental germ of the oak is 

contained in the acorn — as it is quickened and excited to 
activity by the external conditions of moisture, light, and 
heat, and is fully developed under the fixed and determina- 
tive laws of vegetative life — so the germ of the idea of God 
is present in every human mind as the" intuitions of pure 
reason ; these intuitions are excited into energy by our 
experimental and historic knowledge of the facts and laws 
of the universe ; and these facts and intuitions are devel- 
oped into scientific form by the necessary laws of the 
intellect." " On contemplating the acts of a volun- 
tary agent we immediately apprehend them as having a 
moral quality. The mind intuitively apprehends them as 
right or wrong ^ and spontaneously approves or condemns 
them. This distinction in the moral quality of actions is 
felt to be independent of the mind which perceives it, and 
of any mutable condition of things. Good and evil, right 
and wrong are immutable. The distinction between them 
must be the same everywhere, at all times, and to all 
beings — to God, to angels, and to men. It is as impossible 
to conceive that there are intelligences to whom falsehood 
can appear a virtue and justice a vice, as that there are 
intelligences to whom two and two equal five, or to whom 
the properties of the triangle can be more or less than they 
are to us. Accompanying this perception of the immutable 
distinction between virtue and vice, we have the -con- 
sciousness of its being our duty to avoid the one and 
perform the other. We feel upon us an obligation which 
is imperative. We have also an abiding conviction that 
moral good is rewardable, and that vice merits punishment. 
And, finally, we have a conscious apprehension of a future 
retribution." 



AKD THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 19 

Let US try and condense this marvellous accumulation 
of marvellous assertions, that the whole may be seen at a 
glance. 

The human mind is configured and correlated to eternal 
prUiciples of order i and rights and good as they exist i?i the 
Infirdte Mind, God has imposed upon the human mind 
such laws of thought as determine it to form the idea of 
God^ of right and lorong^ of duty and of accountability. 
The mind intuitively apprehends human actions as right 
or wrong ^ and spontaneously approves or condemns them. 
And all this is independent of the mind which perceives it^ 
and of any mutable condition of things. It is as impossible' 
to conceive that there are intelligences to whom falsehood 
can appear a virtue and justice a vice., as that'there are in- 
telligences to whom two and two equal five. And these 
intuitions of pure reason are present in every human mind 
as the vital and rudimental germ of the oak is contained 
i7i the acorn. And as the latter is fully developed under 
the fixed and determinative laws of vegetative life^ so these 
intuitions of pure reason in every human mind are excited 
into energy by our experimental and historic knowledge of 
the facts and laws of the universe, and these facts and 
intuitions are developed into scientific form by the neces- 
sary laws of the intellect. 

Here is a specimen of the transcendental.^ the innate^ 
the intuitive, or what you please to call it. And our 
reviewer " can ill conceal his regrets '^ that Mr. Watson 
did not thus believe and teach, instead of " degrading our 
reason, and casting doubt upon the veracity of our facul- 
ties," so that "the foundations of all truth are loosened 
and unsettled." In short, teaching so erroneous that it 
" landed, as indeed it must inevitably land, in pure materi- 
alism." 



20 WATSON 's THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 

We beg to assure our brother that we are very far- 
from being prepared to substitute the above, or anything 
like it, for the solid Scriptural teachings of Watson's Insti- 
tutes, and we, too, " can ill conceal our regrets " that such 
a substitute should be offered. You may talk as loudly 
as you please about " the intuitions of pure reason," " the 
facts and laws of the universe," and " the necessary laws of 
the intellect," conibmedly and necessarily producing the 
knowledge and faith you speak of; and that as necessarily 
as the majestic oak is produced from the acorn, under the 
jBxed and determinative laws of vegetative life ; but to all 
such assertions, however loud and confident, the facts of 
experience and observation, the facts of history, both 
ancient and modern, and the teachings of the Bible, give 
this simple reply : It is not true ! It is also a fact, we 
claim, that the uniform tendency of fallen man is downward 
without the intervention of a supernatural power: and it 
too often happens that his course is still onward from bad 
to worse, notwithstanding that power is exerted with 
amazing energy. That such statements as those quoted 
above should be made in the face of these glaring facts, 
and so completely at variance with them, is truly mar- 
vellous. Moreover, if our knowledge and faith are matured 
into scientific form by fixed and determinative laws, as 
necessarily as the majestic oak is matured from the acorn 
by the same or similar laws ; if God has imposed upon the 
human intelligence such laws of thought as determine us to 
form the idea of God, of right and wrong, of duty and 
accountability ; if the human intelligence is configured and 
correlated to eternal princij^les of order, and right, and 
good as they exist in the Infinite Intelligence, the teachings 
of Watson and those of his reviewer are alike superfluous 
and useless ; seeing our knowledge and faith are inevitable 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 21 

results of inevitable causes, and, consequently, as destitute 
of virtue as the majestic oak, being produced by the same 
or similar laws. In short, if what the reviewer says be true, 
if the knowledge and faith specified be the inevitable results 
of inevitable causes, it will follow that the old saying is true 
after all, " Whatever is, is right ! " Or, if there is anything 
wrong, it is not in man any more than it is in the " majestic 
oak," seeing the growth of the one, and the knowledge and 
faith of the other, are alike the inevitable results of inevitable 
causes, which causes are " fixed and determinative laws." 

We regret that the universal and irresistible laws of 
which the reviewer speaks have not been more powerfully 
felt in Wyandotte, for it is quite certain that there are 
many here whose knowledge and faith are very far from 
being what is predicated of universal mankind in the above 
statements of the reviewer. And, what is still more 
strange, there are those here who teach that falsehood is a 
virtue I And they believe that the Council of Constance, 
which affirmed this very thing, was infallible. Yea, they 
believe that " no faith is to be kept with heretics." And 
they believe that the Emperor Sigismund and the Council 
of Constance did a truly virtuous act when, acting upon 
this doctrine, they betrayed and burnt John Huss. And 
they believe, doubtless, that the act of the Bishop of Landy 
was a truly virtuous one, when, in the name of the Coun- 
cil, he thus praised the emperor for falsehood^ treachery^ 
and murder: "This most holy and goodly labor .was re- 
served only for thee, O most noble prince ! Upon thee only 
doth it lie, to whom the whole rule and ministration of 
justice is given. Wherefore, thou hast established thy 
praise and renown ; even by the mouths of babes and 
sucklings thy praise shall be celebrated for evermore." All 
this they most steadfastly believe/ Hence, it is clearly 



22 watson's theological institutes 

possible to believe that falsehood is a virtue, at least when 
the falsehood is told for the good of " Mother Church." 
As to whether these are " primitive beliefs," we leave the 
reviewer to decide. In further proof, however, of " this 
perception of the immutable distinction between virtue and 
vice," and which " must be the same everywhere, at all 
times and to all beings — to God, to angels, and to men ; " 
we will add two more specimens of these "necessary be- 
liefs," these " necessary intuitions," which indicate " the 
spontaneous energy of the human mind," in forming the 
idea of God, of right and wrong, of duty and accounta- 
bility, and of a future retribution." 

In 1571 and 1572, Charles IX of France and his great 
men of state made certain flattering proposals to the 
Protestants, and confirmed those proposals by the most 
solemn vows and oaths. By these means they got the 
Protestants into their power, and slew of them, in Paris 
alone, some ten thousand, and in all France some thirty 
thousand. Kow, this falsehood, this perjury, to say noth- 
ing of the most horrible murder that history records, was 
considered so virtuous that God Almighty, as well as the 
king of the French, was praised in the most solemn man- 
ner, particularly at Paris and Rome, where Te Deum was 
sung and high mass offered, accompanied by the ringing of 
bells and other demonstrations of joy. So firmly do they 
believe the doctrine that " heretics ought to be condemned 
and executed, notwithstanding the most solemn assurances 
to the contrary." In other words, so firmly do they " be- 
lieve that falsehood is a virtue." We will give another 
specimen of " the intuitions of pure reason ; " it may be 
found in Mr. Wesley's Miscellaneous Works, vol. v, p. 818. 
Mr. W. says : *' Some time since, a Romish priest came to 
one I knew, and, after talking with her largely, broke out ; 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 23 

' You are no heretic, you have the experience of a real 
Christian ! ' And ' would you,' she asked, ' burn me alive ? ' 
He said, ' God forbid ! — unless it were for the good of the 
church ! ' " Such was " the spontaneous energy " of that 
priest's mind, and so accurate were his " necessary intui- 
tions " in forming " the idea of God, of right and wrong, 
of duty, and of accountability ! " N^or will it mend the 
matter at all to say that these parties were not sincere, for 
that would indicate a state still more at variance with the 
doctrine of " necessary intuitions and beliefs," defended by 
the reviewer, if any state could be more at variance with 
it. But the fact is, multitudes of Roman Catholics do 
beheve these teachings of their church,- viz., that " no faith 
is to be kept with a heretic ; " in other words, that " false- 
hood is a virtue ; " for they hold that " the end sanctifies 
the deed." But Roman Catholics are not the only people 
who beheve that " falsehood is a virtue," under certain cir- 
cumstances ; there are many Protestants who believe the 
doctrine and practise it; in justification of which I have 
heard the following adduced. Some shipwrecked marin- 
ers were cast upon a certain island, among savages ; after a 
long time and much suffering, a ship cast anchor off the 
island ; the savages prepared their canoes to go to the ves- 
sel, but would not let the white man go till he promised 
that he would not disclose the fact that there were other 
white men on the island, and also that he would return 
with them ; on these conditions he was allowed to accom- 
pany the savages to the vessel ; he did disclose the fact, 
and intended to do so when he promised the contrary; 
neither did he return with them, nor did he intend to re- 
turn when he promised to do so. Moreover, he obtained 
the release of his companions in captivity and misery, as 
well as his own ; and all this by telling 2^ falsehood^ which, 



24 watson's theological institutes 

consequently, was declared to be a virtue ! It follows, 
then, that even this is not an impossibility : " there are in- 
telligences to whom falsehoods can appear to be a virtue I " 
nor is it necessary to go to the heathen, either ancient or 
modern, to find them. And, what we think is much worse, 
there are, and ever have been, those who justify murder in 
the same way that they justify falsehood ; and this fact is 
established by the lips of the Most High in the following 
words : " The time cometh that whosoever killeth you will 
think that he doeth God service." Such are some of the 
beliefs (call them intuitive^ primitive^ or what you please) 
of " intelligences " which are declared to be " configured 
and correlated to eternal principles of order, and right, and 
good as they exist in the Infinite Intelligence." 

Before we proceed farther, we will try to fix the point 
or points in dispute; for on page 196, Mr. C. seems to make 
a different issue from that which is obviously comprehended 
in the quotations given above. On the above page he 
says: "The question is not how the idea of God first be- 
came known to man, or how it now becomes known, 
not whether he has it from the Bible, or from tradition, 
or independent of any traditional suggestion." All 
these, we are told, " are irrelevant to the main issue." 
What ! the question is not how the idea first became 
known, or how it now becomes known, or whether we 
have it from the Bible. We respectfully beg to differ. 
These questions certainly are not irrelevant to the main 
issue, for the question respects man's competency to origi" 
note the idea / it is admitted that when the idea is once 
obtained, evidences of its truth are clearly seen in the 
works of creation and providence. But we will hear what 
is declared to be the issue. 

Can man^ from the light of nature, develop a proof of 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. ,25 

God's existence which shall be logical^ conclusive^ and self- 
sufficient f The main question is as to the competency of 
human reason^ from, the facts of the universe and the in- 
tuition of the human mind^ to demo7istrate the existence 
of God. 

Neither have we here a clear exhibit of the doctrine set 
forth in the quotations which we have given and shall give, 
for we are not told whether it is natural or regenerate man 
that is here spoken of, or whether it is natural or enlight- 
ened and graciously assisted reason that is intended. So 
that arguing from these premises, we are still working in 
the dark, for certainly it will not be claimed that Watson 
denies the competency of enlightened reason, already in 
possession of the idea of a God, to deduce proofs of His 
being from the facts of the universe. Certainly there can be 
no controversy with Watson on this point. In vol. i, pp. 271 
and 272, his position is thus clearly stated : " Matter of fact 
does not therefore support the notion that the existence of 
God is discoverable by the unassisted faculties of man : and 
there is, I conceive, very slender reason to admit the ab- 
stract possibility." "The abundant rational evidence of 
the existence of God, which may now be so easily collect- 
ed, and which is so convincing, is therefore no proof that 
without instruction from heaven the human mind would 
ever have made the discovery." It is folly, then, to under- 
take to prove what Watson never denied, and to ignore the 
real question ; to make an issue that he has not made, and 
leave the real issue untouched ; it is worse than folly. 
Neither is the question in dispute confined to the mere 
idea of a God ; it comprehends man's mental and moral 
powers : nor is the question what these powers are or may 
be graciously, but what they are naturally and necessarily. 
What they are or may be by supernatural communications 



26 watson's theological institutes 

is a question which certainly has nothing to do with the 
true issue ; no man has more exalted views of the all-suf- 
ficiency of such supernatural communications than Richard 
Watson, nor has any man, we think, more exalted views of 
the dignity and glory to which man may be raised by this 
gracious and supernatural aid. The question is not whe- 
ther the book of nature develops ideas of God's being and 
attributes, but whether poor, blind, fallen man can read it 
without gracious assistance ; not whether a well instructed 
Christian can read it. Declaring that to be of nature 
which is solely, of grace, stealing from Jews and Christians 
the knowledge of God and of the things of God, and then 
giving the natural, unassisted powers of man credit for the 
discovery, are the points to which Watson objects, and of 
which he complains. The question is not, we repeat, what 
man is or may be graciously^ but what he is naturally and 
necessarily^ what he is " constituted by the great Architect 
of his mental being," unaided by a gracious revelation ; 
and that, too, after and despite the fall ; yea, and independ- 
ent of any act or choice of his own for or against. For it 
is claimed that " God has imposed upon his intelligence 
such laws of thought as determine him to form the idea of 
God, of right and wrong, of duty, and of accountability." 
(P. 184.) "And this distinction of the quality of moral ac- 
tions is felt to be independent of the mind which perceives 
it." (P. 205.) This, it will be seen, is very different from 
what Mr. C, on page 196, represents to be the true issue. 
When he tells us that reason can draw such and such con- 
clusions from the facts of the universe, he really makes no 
issue at all, unless he tells us what reason it is he speaks of 
graciously assisted or wiassisted reason, enlightened^ or 
unenlightened reason ; for, I repeat, there As no dispute, at 
least no room for dispute, with Watson in regard to en- 
lightened reason. 



AKD THE BIBL^ DEFENDED. 27 

To prevent the possibility of mistake as to tlie true 
issue, and that it may be seen we are not fighting a man of 
straw, we will give a few more quotations. 

On p. 196, where he defines his position, as stated 
above, Mr. C. says: "Instead, then, of our knowledge of 
God resting upon revelation alone, we regard the idea of 
God as a phenomenon of the universal human intelligence 
It is in all minds in which reason is in any considerable de- 
gree developed, and is there as a necessary truth." This 
knowledge, observe, " is in all minds as a necessary truth,'''' 
So Mr. Cosh, " The idea of God, the belief in God, may be 
justly represented as native to man." The propositions on 
p. 199 may be thus summed up : 

" The understanding gives, as the necessary ' concepts,' 
the ' known ' primitive cognitions." 

" The reason gives, as the necessary antecedents of the 
primitive cognitions of the understanding, 'the implied' 
primitive beliefs." 

" The judgment, or logical faculty, gives as the necessary 
relation between these understanding conceptions and 
these ideas of pure reason, ' the deduced ' primitive judg- 
ments or axioms.'''' 

We think it deserves at least a passing notice, that 
these mental phenomena are so mathematically exact that 
"the known primitive cognitions" are just 6, the "implied 
primitive beliefs," 6, and "the deduced primitive judg- 
ments," 6. And all these act so harmoniously and with 
such combined power thaf the soul of v/hich they are the 
phenomena is guided directly and inevitably to "« mor«^ 
governor — a God." Hence he adds : 

" In each of the above propositions we have an under- 
standing perception — ' a form ' under which the mind ne- 
cessarily conceives the facts of external and internal per- 



28 watson's theological institutes 

ception ; we have also an idea of pure reason — an implied 
or implicit belief, arising spontaneously in the human mind 
in presence of the understanding conception ; and lastly, 
we have an analytic judgment — the affirmation of a neces- 
sary and universal relation between the two." (P. 200.) 
*' In early infancy this principle of intuitive logic is de- 
veloped." (P. 201.) "So conclusive is this intuitive logic 
that no increase of proof can make it clearer, and no 
argument can make it stronger than when first appre- 
hended." " From the consideration of second and physi- 
cal causes we are carried forward to the idea of an intelli- 
gent cause." On pages 205 and 206 we have specifications 
of the moral intuitions, by which we have clear and una- 
voidable perceptions " of the immutable distinction be- 
tween virtue and vice," and " of our duty to avoid the one 
and perform the other. We have also an abiding convic- 
tion that moral good is rewardable, and that vice is punish- 
able. And, finally, we have a conscious apprehension of a 
future retribution." And " these moral intuitions are con- 
firmed by our experience. The actions which by the con- 
science are pronounced right, and as such approved, are 
found to be productive of happiness ; and the actions 
"which by the same faculty are pronounced to be wrong 
and condemned, are found to be productive of misery." 
So true and accurate are the workings of all the mental 
and moral powers of all men naturally, after and despite 
the fall ! We may just, however, observe in passing, that 
Paul's conscience, before his conversion at least, was an ex- 
ception, for there were many actions which Ws conscience 
pronounced right, which certainly were not productive of 
happiness ; and we think it is equally certain that the doc- 
trines and practice of the Christians, which the same con- 
science pronounced wrong, were not productive of misery. 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 29 

But we will let that pass for the present, till we give two 
more quotations, from other sources however, but equally- 
illustrative of the same transcendental philosophy, and de- 
signed to keep the real issue clearly before us; then we 
will be prepared to combat the error ; and its advocates 
will not be able to say, "You misrepresent us." 

" Schelling and Hegel," says Murdock, " claimed to 
have discovered the absolute identity of the objective and 
subjective in human knowledge, or of things and human 
conceptions of them. And hence, with them transcendent- 
alism claims to have a true knowledge of all things, mate- 
rial and immaterial, human and divine, so far as the mind 
is capable of knowing ; and in this sense the word tran- 
scendentalism is now most used." 

The following is in harmony with the preceding quota- 
tions, and came, doubtless, from the same source, the tran- 
scendental school : " We need a revelation of mercy, not of 
justice ; I learn justice in my own breast." This is one of 
several notes which the writer took while listening to Dr. 
Dempster preach in the Woodward Avenue Church, Detroit, 
29th April, 1860. We assure the doctor we do not wish 
to have justice administered to us out of the breast of the 
natural man, unassisted by revelation: from such justice, 
" good Lord, deliv^ us ! " Nor will we go there to learn 
justice. 

In the quotations here given, we have a clear view of 
the true issue ; in them any one may see at a glance what 
in this controversy is asserted by the one party and denied 
by the other as to what man is mentally/ and morally in his 
natural state / as to what he is necessarily and universally ; 
as to what the natural reason can and cannot do independ- 
ent of supernatural assistance, independent of revelation. 
Within this compass may be found everything that legiti- 



30 watson's theological institutes 

mately belongs to this controversy. With regard to the 
doctrines necessarily involved, less or more, by the position 
of either party, they take a wider range, including more 
particularly the doctrine of the fall^ the doctrine of the 
atonement^ and the doctrine of the spirifs agency in tlie 
salvation of the soul. For, if the natural man is all that 
he is declared to be in the above quotations, then we must 
certainly take a different view of these three leading doc- 
trines of Christianity from that which has been entertained 
hitherto by those who are denominated the orthodox. 

"We wall now glance at the three leading terms in Mr. 
C.'s three grand propositions, viz., understanding^ judgment^ 
and reason. As with terms already noticed, so with these, 
Mr. C. takes it for granted that the meaning which he 
attaches to them is fixed and agreed upon by philosophers 
and theologians ; takes it for granted that each of these 
m.ental faculties does the W'ork that he here assigns to it ; 
that the understanding gives the primitive cognitions, the 
judgment gives the primitive judgments, and the reason 
the primitive beliefs to the extent claimed : and all this 
NECESSAEiLT ! PhJlosophcrs, however, are very far from 
being thus agreed as to these mental faculties, as the fol- 
lowing quotations will show ; and they wdll show, too, we 
think, how little reason Mr. C. has for the great confidence 
which he evidently has in his conclusions, though derived 
from such premises. 

The Understanding. " Perhaps," says Coleridge, "the 
safer use of the term, for general purposes, is to take it as 
the mind, or rather as the man himself considered as a 
concipient as well as a percipient being, and reason as a 
power supervening." And immediately after he says, "it 
is the whole spontaneity of the representing mind." 

"The reason and the understanding," says Whewell, 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 31 

" have not been steadily distinguished by English writers. 
The understanding is the faculty of applying principles, 
however obtained." 

" I use the term understanding," says Sir Wm. Hamil- 
ton, "not for the noetic faculty, intellect proper, but for 
the dionoetic^ or discursive faculty, in its widest significa- 
tion." 

" Sir J. Mackintosh," says Haywood, " prefers the term 
intellect to that of understanding as the source of concep- 
tions." "The word verstmid^'^ [understanding], says the 
same writer, " is used occasionally as being synonymous 
with vernuft " [rea?son]. 

The Judgment. Our judgments, according to Aristotle, 
are either problematical., assertive., or demonstrable ; or, 
in other words, the results of opinion., of beliefs or of 
science. Locke says : " Judgm,ent implies the comparison 
of two or more ideas." Dr. Reid says he " applies the 
word judg7nent to every determination of the mind con- 
cerning what is true or false." He adds : " One of the most 
important distinctions of our judgments is, that some of 
them are intuitive, others grounded on argument." Thomp- 
son says : " Judgments are analytic^ synthetic^ and tautolo- 
goiisP 

The Reason. " There is one faculty," says Aristotle, 
" by which man comprehends and embodies in his behef 
first principles, which cannot be proved, which he must 
receive from some authority ; there is another by which, 
when a new fact is laid before him, he can show that it is 
in conformity with some principle possessed before. One 
process resembles the collection of materials for building, 
the other their orderly arrangement. One is intuition, the 
other logic. In other words, one is reason in its highest 
sense, the other understanding,^"^ (See Sewell, " Christ. 
Mor.," chap. 21.) 



32 watson's theological institutes 

" Anselm considers the facts of consciousness under the 
fourfold arrangement of sensibility, will, reason, and intel- 
ligence, and claims that the last two are not identical." 
(Fleming's "Vocabulary.") 

" This word," says Whately, "is used to signify all the 
intellectual powers collectively ; 2, those intellectual pow- 
ers in which man differs from brutes ; 3, the faculty of 
carrying on the operation of reasoning." 

" What some call the intuitive reason and the discursive 
reason, S. T. Coleridge calls the reason and the understand- 
ing, and says the latter is of the nature of the instinct of 
animals." (Fleming's "Vocabulary.") 

" Reason^'* says Cousin, " is a revelation, a necessary 
and universal revelation which is wanting to no man, and 
which enlightens every man on his coming into the world. 
Heason is the necessary mediator between God and man, the 
Xoyos of Pythagoras and Plato, the Word made flesh, which 
serves as the interpreter of God, and the teacher of man, 
divine and human at the same time. It is not, indeed, the 
absolute God in his majestic individuality, but his manifes- 
tation in spirit and in truth ; it is not the Being of beings ; 
but it is the revealed God of the human race." The same 
author is thus quoted by Sir Wm. Hamilton : " Reason is a 
revelation of God in man ; the ideas of which we are con- 
scious belong not to us, but to absolute intelligence." It 
has been well observed that the root and germ of all this 
is Plato's doctrine, that human reason is a ray of the 
Divine reason. It is this notion, doubtless, that led to a 
denial of the individuality of the human soul. "The 
opinion," says Mr. Watson (vol. i, p. 21), "that the human 
soul is a part of God, enclosed for a short time in matter, 
but still a portion of his essence, runs through much of the 
Greek philosophy. It is still more ancient than that, and, 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 83 

at the present day, the same opinion destroys all idea of 
accountability among those who in India follow the Bra- 
minical system. ' The human soul is God, and the acts of the 
human soul are, therefore, the acts of God.' This is the 
popular argument by which their crimes are justified." It 
is easy to see that the above notions of the ancient heathen 
and modern Brahmins, and the following from Cousin, are 
one in origin^ nature^ and tendency : " Reason or intelli- 
gence is not individual, is not ours, is not even human ; it 
is absolute, it is divine." The following notions, too, have 
a common parentage with the above : " The very ancient 
notion," says Mr. Watson (vol. i, p. 22), "of an absorption 
of souls back again into the Divine Essence, was with the 
ancients what we know it to be now in the metaphysical 
system of the Hindoos, a denial of individual immortality." 
Thus error leads to error, even as truth leads to truth. 
" JSTor have the demonstrations of reason," continues Mr. 
Watson, " done anything to convince the other grand 
division of metaphysical pagans iuto which modern hea- 
thenism is divided, the followers of Budhu, who believe in 
the total annihilation of men and gods after a series of 
ages — a point of faith held probably by a majority of the 
present race of mankind." 

Such are a very few of the multitudinous and contra- 
dictory definitions which ancient and modern philosophers 
have given us of these faculties of the mind. Let us sum 
up the definitions here given, that we may see them all at a 
glance. The uisrDEESTAiST)i:srG is the man himself ; thefac- 
xdty of applying principles / the discursive faculty. It is 
synony^nous with reason y it is of the nature of the instinct 
of anim,als. Judgment : It implies comparison ; our 
judgments are intuitive^ analytic^ synthetic, tautologous. 
Our judgments are drawn from opinion, belief or scie'nce. 
2* 



34 watson's theological institutes 

Reason : It is intuition. It is not intelligence. It is all 
the intellectual powers collectively. It is a revelation frotn 
God. It is a mediator. It is a light. It is the Logos. It 
is the Word 7nade flesh. It is an interpreter. It is a 
teacher. It is Divine and human. It is the revealed God 
of the human race. Its ideas belong to absolute intelli- 
gence^ not to us. It is a ray of the Divine reaso7u 

Here is a specimen of man's knowledge of himself. 
Here are some of the conflicting opinions of some of the 
greatest philosophers with regard to the nature, power ^ and 
office of these mental faculties. The understanding is re- 
duced to a level w4th the instinct of brutes. The reason is 
more fortunate, for while it has various fortunes and re- 
verses as it passes through the hands of different philoso- 
phers, it is finally elevated to proper divinity and godhead ; 
though at one time, at least, it was so low that it was de- 
nied intelligence ! Any one may now see how little confi- 
dence is to be placed in systems based upon such unfounded 
and contradictory assumptions. It is worthy of remark that 
the faculty in which Mr. C. finds so much power, from 
which so many good works do proceed, and upon which, 
in short, his whole system depends for its very existence, 
is that which has had the misfortune of being reduced to a 
level with the instinct of brutes. Others, however, deal 
more kindly with it and make it " the discursive faculty," 
while others declare " it is the man himself." 

While reading what philosophers say the reason^ the 
judgment^ and the understanding do, and must do, we 
were convinced that w^hile they thus talk they insensibly 
lose sight of man's individuality and responsibility. Strict- 
ly speaking, it is not proper to say that the reason, the 
judgment, or the understanding does anything, any more 
than it is proper, strictly speaking, to say the eye sees, the 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 35 

ear hears, the feet walk, and the hands strike. The fact is, 
what is thus attributed to the faculties in the one case, and 
to the bodily members in the other, is 'done by the ego^ 
and is emphatically and essentially the act of the ego^ 
which is always a unit, however much we may talk about 
faculties. If I would speak with strict propriety I must 
say I see, I hear, I strike, I walk, I understand, I reason, 
I judge — I, the ego, I, myself^ do all these things. This 
thought is expressed by Sir John Davis in his poem on the 
immortality of the soul, thus : 

" When she rates things, and moves from ground to ground, 
The name of reason she acquires from this : 
But when by reason she the truth hath found, 
And standeth fixt, she understanding is." 

While listening to so many transcendental philosophers 
talk so confidently and so pompously of the faculties of 
the human mind, we were forcibly reminded of what Arch- 
bishop Whately says of certain ecclesiastics as to their 
manner of talking, and the effects produced. " There is 
something to many minds awfally and mystically sublime 
in the idea of the ' decisions of the Catholic Church,' and 
of ' Catholic Councils, convened in the name of Christ, and 
whose decrees are authoritative,' " &c., &c-, &c., " espe- 
cially when these matters are treated of in solemn and 
imposing language of that peculiar kind of dazzling misti- 
ness whose effect is to convey at first sight to ordinary 
readers a striking impression, with an appearance of being 
perfectly intelligible at the first glance, but to become more 
obscure and doubtful at the second glance, and more and 
more so the more attentively it is studied by a reader of 
clear understanding, .so as to leave him utterly in doubt, at 
the last, which of several meanings it is meant to convey, 



36 Watson's theological institutes 

or whether any at all. The rule of ' omne ignotum pro 
mirifico ' applies most emphatically to such doctrines treat- 
ed of in such language." In the foregoing the bishop has 
given us, we think, an admirable picture of our transcend- 
ental philosophers, of the pompous manner in which they 
speak of " the human intelligence as configured and correlat- 
ed to eternal principles of order, and right, and good, as they 
exist in the Infinite Intelligence ; " of " the primitive cogni- 
tions, intuitions, and beliefs ; " " the concepts " and the " ideas 
of pure reason," which reason " is the Logos of Pythagoras 
and Plato ;" " the "Word made flesh ; " " the manifestation of 
God in-spirit and in truth." " It is not the Being of beings, 
but it is the revealed God of the human race." The confi- 
dence with which they speak of their own decisions, and 
the wonderful effect which this sort of talk and its "dazzling 
mistiness" produce upon certain minds, are equally well 
described, we think, in the above sketch, and the disap 
pointment experienced after careful investigation is not less 
accurate and truthful. Oh how sad the disappointment, 
when the reader turns away from these transcendental de- 
scriptions of fallen humanity, and looks upon that humanity 
as it is ! and especially when he follows it in its downward 
' course of ignorance, corruption, and diabolical wickedness, 
till he can see nothing left but the savage, the cannibal, the 
fiend incarnate ; and then, perhaps, alas ! the course is still 
downward till it terminates in eternal ruin ! How sad, I 
say, is the disappointment when, the " dazzling mistiness " 
having past away, he is left to look upon the dreadful facts 
as they are. We are not now speaking, remember, about 
man when raised by the supernatural remedy ; not speak- 
ing of what man is hy that remedy, but of what he is not- 
urally and independent of that remedy : for, as we said 
before, what he is or may be through or by that remedy, 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 37 

has nothing to do with the present controversy. Let it be 
remembered, too, that whether Watson is right or w rong, 
we cannot indorse the teaching here objected to ; the 
charges brought against Watson we will answer in due 
time ; at present we are attending to the teachings and as- 
sumptions of his opponents as set forth in the quotations 
which we have given in these pages. To us it seems 
strange, passing strange, that men will build systems of 
philosophy and theology upon mere assumptions concerning 
faculties which the wisest philosophers, whether ancient or 
modern, have never been able to distinguish from each 
other and define with any degree of harmony and satisfac- 
tion ; concerning which, in short, there are, and ever have 
been, so many conflicting and contradictory opinions ; and 
the wonder is that all this is done with as much confidence 
as if all were demonstration : while the fact is indisputable 
that philosophers are and ever have been entirely disagreed 
as to the very foundation of the systems thus built. And 
it is still more strange, if possible, that there has been, and 
still is, such a persistent disposition to be independent of 
God's word, notwithstanding we are so much indebted to 
that word for a correct knowledge of the subject under in- 
vestigation. And if we appeal to that word as decisive 
and final in its decisions on this subject, immediately it is 
insinuated, if not broadly asserted, that we are not philoso- 
phers, or- that we are opposed to philosophy, as though the 
Bible and philosophy were at variance. Even the author 
of the article under consideration has only quoted, if we 
mistake not, Romans i, 19, 20, and Acts xvii, 26-28, and 
the latter, we think, is irrelevant, and as to the former it 
shall have our attention in due time. It is not to be won- 
dered at, however, that philosophers of the transcendental 
school should not seek help from the Bible while they hold 



38 watson's theological institutes 

such high opinions of man's mental and moral powers. "We, 
however, forming a much lower estimate of those powers, 
and feeling, consequently, our dependence upon God's 
word for instruction on such subjects, purpose to make a 
free use of it, believing, as we do, that " all Scripture is 
given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, 
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness ; 
that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished 
unto all good works." 

" To the law and to the testimony," then : what does 
God's word say concerning man's mental and moral facul- 
ties naturally ? And let it be distinctly borne in mind that 
we are not now discussing the mere question whether it is 
possible for man to derive the idea of a God from tJte 
facts of the universe / for, though we should admit that, 
still we would object to the teachings of transcendentalism 
as set forth in the quotations which we have given above ; 
our work at present is to show that those teachings, as to 
man's mental and moral faculties naturally^ are at variance 
with the teachings of God's word, and with the facts of 
experience and history. 

In his first epistle to the Corinthians, second chapter, 
fourteenth verse, the Apostle Paul thus speaks : " But the 
natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God ; 
for they are foolishness unto him ; neither can he know 
them, for they are spiritually discerned." The person thus 
described is denominated o i(/vxlkq<; av6po}7ro<;, the natural man. 
Any one who will follow the apostle from verse 17 of the 
preceding chapter will see that he all along speaks of this 
person as the representative of a certain class, or of the 
class of which he is the representative. In verse 20 he 
speaks of 6 aocjios, and in verse 26 of o-o^ot /cara crapKa, and 
in verse 22 of the Greeks who seek after a-o</>tai/, wisdom, 



A]ST> THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 39 

and in verse 20 of " the disputer of this world." Now, to 
this natural man^ this icise man^ this disputer of this 
loorld^ these Greeks^ or, in other words, these philosophers 
who rejected revelation and boasted of their philosophy, 
and the discoveries of natural reason, St. Paul opposes 
6 TTvev/xartKos dv^po)7ro9, the spiritual man, in verse 15 of the 
second chapter. Of these same " wise men after the flesh," 
the same apostle thus speaks in Romans i, 21, 22 : "They 
became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart 
was darkened ; professing themselves to be a-ocjiOL, they 
became fools." Dr. Adam Clarke, in his comment on this 
place, says : " This is most strikingly true of all the ancient 
philosophers, whether Greeks or Romans, as their works, 
which remain, sufficiently testify." Then, after some fur- 
ther remarks, he adds : " It was from the Christian religion 
alone that true philosophy and genuine philosophers sprang." 
Jude gives us a very dark picture of these same ifrvxiKOLy 
W'ho, he says, verse 19, "have not the spirit." It is this 
same " natural man " that is described in the eighth chapter 
of the epistle to the Romans. His " carnal mind " is de- 
clared to be "enmity against God, for it is not subject to the 
law of God, neither indeed can be." " It is enmity ^^'' says 
Mr. Wesley on the place, " to His existence^ power^ and 
providence^ ^NTow, this man, though a fool, professes to 
be very wise, and boasts very much of what he calls crofjaav 
wisdom, even aocfaav tojv cro^cov, the wisdom of the wise. 
But Paul calls it dv6p(iyjnv7]<s o-o^ta?, man's wisdom,, and the 
wisdom of thi^ world, and opposes to it crocfytav ®eov, the 
wisdom of God, which the natural man hath not, because 
he " receiveth not the things " or teachings " of the Spirit 
of God, for they are foolishness unto him ; neither can he 
know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 
Cor., chap, ii, verses 4, 6, 7, and 14.) This man, we are told, 



40 WATSOIt's theological mSTITUTES 

cannot. know the things of the Spirit, not because this 
knowledge is absolutely out of his reach, but because he 
will not be instructed in God's way, because he rejects the 
supernatural remedy. " That the natural man here," says 
Whitby on the place, "is the man who rejects revelation, 
and admits of no higher principle to judge of things by 
but philosophy and demonstration from the principles of 
natural reason, is the express assertion of Theodoret, 
Chrysostom, Photius, GEcumenius, and Theophylact, on the 
place." 

We now see who the natural man is, and what that 
wisdom is of which he boasted. It is of this wisdom the 
apostle speaks when he says, chapter i, verse 21, " The world 
by wisdom knew not God." And this declaration we claim 
to be decisive of the question ; it decides the very question 
at issue : by this wisdom the world never did know God ; 
this is the positive and unmistakable declaration of the 
apostle, and this declaration alone must forever set the 
question at rest in the minds of all who believe the apostle 
" wrote and spoke as he was moved by the Holy Ghost." 
Just opposed to this is the equally positive declaration of 
modern transcendentalists, with whom, consequently, the 
apostle joins issue as directly as he did with their brethren, 
the philosophers of his own day. It is this philosophy, so 
called, that placed itself in opposition to apostolic teaching 
in apostolic times ; and it does so in our times. This is the 
teaching with which the above-named fathers joined issue, 
with which the orthodox in all ages joined issue, with 
which Watson joined issue, and with which we join issue. 
And with this teaching all must join issue who would not 
join issue with apostolic teaching. 

The importance of this subject will justify us in dwell- 
ing upon it yet longer, that we may, if possible, set it in a 
still clearer light. 



AOTD THE BIBLE DEFEITDED. 41 

We take the ground that when Adam fell there was 
nothing in him by which he could raise himself again, 
either less or more ; nor could any remedy be found in that 
order of things which existed before the fall, and which we 
call the natural order, in contradistinction from that order 
of things which was introduced after the fall, and which we 
call the supernatural order. Consequently, so far as Adam 
and his posterity have been raised from the fall, they have 
been raised by the supernatural remedy thus introduced, 
and introduced for this very purpose. And to this same 
supernatural remedy we must be indebted for all we shall 
be raised, as well as for all we have been raised : in the 
natural man, and the natural order, as thus explained, there 
was and is no remedy for fallen humanity. This we con- 
ceive to be the teaching of the apostle in the eighth chapter 
of his epistle to the Romans, from which we will now give 
a somcAvhat extended quotation, it is so' much to the point. 
" For what the law could not do, in that it was weak 
through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness 
of sinful flesh, and for sin [or by a sacrifice for sin], con- 
demned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law 
might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but 
after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh, do mind 
the things of the flesh ; but they that are after the Spirit, 
the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is 
death ; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace : be- 
cause the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not 
subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So, 
then, they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye 
are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit 
of God dwell in you. Now, if any man have not the Spirit 
of Christ, he is none of his." Now, the apostle is speaking 
of precisely the same persons here that he speaks of in his 



42 watson's theological institutes 

letter to the Corinthians. The i/^vxikos and Tri/cv/xanKos, or 
natural and si^iritual persons there, are the carnally and 
spiritually minded persons spoken of here, as any one may 
see by carefully reading both places, especially if the origi- 
nal be consulted. See the Greek words used by the apostle 
in 1 Cor. ii, 14, 15, and Romans viii, 5-9. The amount is 
this : so far as the one has received the supernatural rem- 
edy, which has been introduced and applied by the Spirit 
of God, which dwelleth in him, so far he is spiritual, he is 
wise.) he is rights and no farther y and all comes through 
the atonement : so that the remedy^ the medium of com- 
munication^ and the mode of applying tbe remedy^ are 
alike supernattjeal. On the other hand, so far as the 
other person has rejected this supernatural remedy, so far 
he is co.rnal^ and walks after the flesh and not after the 
Spirit ; so far he is ignorant, foolish, icro7ig, dead. In a 
word, so far he is natural, in the sense here explained ; that 
is, so far as he has rejected the supernatural remedy, and, 
consequently, is not renewed, is not spiritual, just so far he 
is " the natural man who receiveth not the things of the 
Spirit of God ; " and, what is worse, " they are foolishness 
unto him ; neither can lie know them; " not as a "natural 
man," not by "the deductions of natural reason," not by 
" the pure intuitions of reason ; " in a word, not by his 
natural powers, independent of the supernatural remedy 
provided and offered. " Canst thou by searching find out 
God ? " No, not in this way, for God and the things of 
God " are spiritually discerned," and the natural man has 
not that qualification, and cannot have it while he depends 
upon his natural resources and rejects the supernatural 
remedy y " neither can he know them " while he does 'so. 
" This- is the condemnation, that light is come into the 
world, and men loved darkness rather than light." They 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 43 

will even go back to heathenism rather than acknowledge 
their complete dependence upon this supernatural remedy 
for light and life, nor will they acknowledge their indebt- 
edness to it for the light they have. 

Such is the meaning of the terms natural and superna- 
tural^ as used in this connection. Philosophers may attach 
other meanings to the term natural^ but theologians must 
be scriptural in their teaching, let come what will of the 
technicalities found in the philosopher's vocabulary. With 
these views we must look upon the teachings of transcend- 
entalism as tantamount to a rejection of the supernatural 
remedy altogether : for if man is, or may be, by the mere 
exercise of his natural powers, all that these teachings say 
he is, or may be, then there certainly is no such necessity 
for the atonement and the worJc of the jSpii^it, as that which 
our JBibleSj our catechisms, and our fathers have taught 
us to believe there is. ^ 

But, not to insist upon the teachings of our catechisms 
and of our fathers, at present, we will continue our quota- 
tions from the Bible. The case of our first parent immedi- 
ately after the fall is worthy of notice. Genesis iii. 9, 10, is 
a record that is very suggestive : " And the Lord God 
called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou ? 
And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden : and I was 
afraid, because I was naked ; and I hid myself." I hid 
MYSELF ! From whom ? From Jehovah Elohim ! Alas ! 
how is the mighty fallen ! Poor Adam ! And didst thou 
think thou couldst hide thyself from the Omniscient God ? 
I wonder if the belief of Adam, that he could hide himself 
from Jehovah Elohim, was one of the " primitive beliefs" 
which our transcendental philosophers speak of; or was 
this happy thought one of those "intuitions of pure reason" 
which they say are found in every man. If so, we certainly 



44r Watson's theological institutes 

must object ; for such beliefs and intuitions are not found 
even in our children : because the good Book has taught 
them to say, " Whither shall I go from thy Spirit ? or 
whither shall I flee from thy presence ? If I ascend up 
into heaven, thou art there : if I make my bed in hell, 
behold thou art there ; if I take the wings of the morning, 
and dweU in the uttermost parts of the sea ; even there 
shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. 
If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me ; even the 
night shall be light about me. Yea, the darkness hideth 
not from thee ; but the night shineth as the day : the 
darkness and the light are both alike to thee." Thus it is 
easy to see why our children and our philosophers are 
wiser than was their first parent immediately after his fall ; 
but it is marvellous that certain philosophers will persist in 
ascribing to unassisted reason what is due to revelation ! 

But this pooi^ fallen, ignorant Adam, we are told 
"begat a son in his own likeness, after his image;" and 
soon after we are told that " God saw that the wickedness 
of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination 
of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." 
Here is another specimen of the " primitive judgments," 
and of the " intuitions of pure reason ! " " The earth also 
was corrupt before God ; and the earth was filled with 
violence. And God looked upon the earth, and behold, it 
was corrupt ; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the 
earth." Another striking evidence that " the human intel- 
ligence is configured and correlated to eternal principles 
of order, and right, and good as they exist in the Infinite 
Intelligence." The above quotations are from Gen. vi, 5, 
11, 12; the following is from chap, viii, 21, and it shows 
that the antediluvians, and the postdiluvians, naturally^ 
are the same : " for the imagination of man's heart is evi] 
from his youth." 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 45 

Passing over the abominations of Sodom and Gomorrah, 
and all other developments of the corruptions and igno- 
rance of " the natural man^'''^ by which the pages of history- 
are stained and blackened all over, we come to the days of 
Job, and find the natural man thus described by the wisest 
and most observant in the land of Uz : " Yain man would 
be wise, though man be born like a wild ass's colt," Job 
xi, 12. And again, chap, xv, 16, we are assured that he is 
" abominable and filthy," and that he " drinketh iniquity 
like water." It is remarkable that then, as now, there 
were two parties : one claiming to be wise^ though vain / 
while the other degraded the natural reason quite as much 
as Watson is said to have done, as is seen in the above 
declarations of the most thinking men of Uz, who, no 
doubt, were sensationahsts, while the other party were as 
evidently transcendentalists, though it does not appear that 
they professed quite as much as do their brethren of the 
present day. In the days of the psalmist we do not find 
that " the natural ma^i " is any better ; for the Almighty 
Himself, after careful investigation, " to see if there were 
any that did understand and seek God," declares, " They 
are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy : 
there is none that doeth good, no, not one." In the days 
of Isaiah and Jeremiah, too, we find " the natural man " 
just the same ; as is evident from the declarations of those' 
prophets, which run thus : " The ox knoweth his owner, 
and the ass his master's crib : but Israel doth not know, 
my people do not consider." So it appears that those 
stupid creatures knew their master and their owner better 
than " the natural man " knew his God, though in the land 
of Israel. While Isaiah gives us a mournful picture of the 
stupidity and ignorance of the natural man, Jeremiah gives 
us a still more mournful picture of his moral badness, in 



46 watson's theological institutes 

these few but awfully expressive and comprehensive words : 
"The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately 
wicked : who can know it ? " Still worse, if possible, is 
the dark picture which our blessed Lord gives us of the 
same heart, Matt, xv, 19, and Mark vii, 21, 22. In this 
picture are fourteen specifications, one of which is blas- 
phemy. Thus while some are " contradicting and blas- 
pheming " the name of God, others are denying his very 
being ^ as the psalmist tells us in the 14th psalm, in these 
words : " The fool hath said in his heart there is no God ; " 
and a little after he says, " They are corrupt, they have 
done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." 
In the third chapter of his epistle to the Romans the Apostle 
Paul quotes these words of the psalmist, and, in short, sums 
up and indorses all that previous inspired writers had said 
on this subject. And dark as is the dreadful painting, he 
declares it is a true picture of the natural man, whether a 
Jew or a Gentile. " What then," says he, " are we," Jews, 
" better than they," Gentiles ? " JSTo, in no wise ; for we 
have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are 
all under sin.." And to know what he means by being 
" under sin," the specifications which follow must be care- 
fully read. 

Now, what does our blessed Lord, and all the inspired 
writers of the Old and New Testaments, mean in those 
declarations which we have quoted, and others which 
might be quoted ? What is the specific meaning of these 
their statements ? Do they mean to convey the idea that 
every human being upon the earth at every period of its 
history, was, is, and shall be all that is specified in the 
above and similar declarations ? Do they by such utter- 
ances mean to teach us that every child of man was, is, and 
shall be as ignorant of God and as corrupt as is asserted in 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 47 

the words here quoted ? To this question there is but one 
answer : they did not, and could not, mean this ; for there 
have been wise and good people on the earth at every 
period of its history. "What, then, did they mean ? I 
answer : they meant just what they said, viz., that this is 
the character of the ij/vxi-kos avS^pcoTros, the natural man, 
whenever and wherever found ; and the natural man is 
the man that is not renewed by the supernatural remedy ; 
and the Trvev/xartKos is the man that is thus renewed : hence, 
while the former receiveth not the things of the Spirit of 
God, and regards them as the veriest foolishness, because, 
as a natural man, he cannot know them ; the latter dis- 
cerneth all things, all those things which the other can- 
not hiow, " because they are spiritually/ discerned,'^ ^ which 
spiritual discernment he has not, and, as a natural fnan, 
cannot have. 

We now see who the natural man is, and what he is. 
And we see, too, that the teachings of the Bible and those 
of transcendentalism, with regard to the mental and moral 
character of the natural man, are completely at variance ; 
it is not possible to reconcile them ; so completely are they 
at variance that it is not possible to hold the one, intelli- 
gently, and not reject the other. And that this same 
teaching is at variance with the facts of experience also, 
will be shown in due time. 

Our reviewer professes to have shown " that human 
reason can demonstrate from the facts of the uiiiverse and 
the intuitions of the mind that God exists, and consequently 
that ' our knowledge of the existence of God is not derived 
from revelation alone.' " Then follows what he calls " an 
analysis of the belief in God as developed in the human in- 
telligence." 

This analysis we have already examined, and have shown 



48 watson's theological msTmiTES 

that what he claims cannot be granted, that his whole sys- 
tem rests upon mere assumptions as to the office and work 
of certain mental faculties concerning which philosophers 
are not and never have been agreed. We have shown, 
too, that what he asserts concerning these faculties in the 
natural man, is utterly opposed to the teachings of God's 
word ; and will show that it is equally opposed to the facts 
of experience. And as to the Trvcv/xartKos, the spiritual man, 
the man that is already in possession of the idea of a God, 
and is enlightened and renewed by the supernatural reme- 
dy^ his ability to prove the being of a God is not questioned. 
So far as we know, certainly Watson does not question it ; 
on the contrary, he asserts it. Therefore, to prove that 
this man can do this thing is to prove what is not denied, 
and to prove that the \\ivyiKo% avOpwiros, the natural man, car 
do this, is to prove what the word of God declares to b( 
impossible. IsTeither does it follow that, because the spir- 
itual man can demonstrate the being of a God from the 
facts of the universe, therefore he is not indebted to 
revelation for this " knowledge of the existence of God," 
seeing his ability thus to demonstrate this great truth in 
this way, may result entirely from his knowledge of God 
thus received ; therefore, till this is disproved, we must re- 
ject the inference as altogether illegitimate. We must say, 
then, and we do it with all deference, that the reviewer has 
been entirely unsuccessful in his undertaking ; he has ut- 
terly failed to prove what he undertook to prove, unless he 
undertook to prove what is not denied, viz., that the spir- 
itual man can do this, and even then his inference is ille- 
gitimate. 

We confess that we question the possibility of man's 
originating the idea of a God, even in his primeval state, 
supposing that his Creator had left him without that idea 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 49 

for a given time, which we do not believe. When we 
speak of the idea of a God, we mean, of course, the God of 
the Bible, for there is no other. That man, even in his 
fallen state, has the idea of a superior being whom he wor- 
ships as God, is not questioned ; nor will he be satisfied 
with one, for he will have gods many and lords many. 
But the question is : could man, even in his primeval state, 
originate the idea of the true God^ the God of the JBihle ? 

In reply to this question perhaps we cannot do better 
than give a quotation from our published review of a ser- 
mon by Rev. Henry Ward Beecher. In reply to his asser- 
tion that " the natural world and the human soul are the 
only two sources from which men derived their ideas con- 
cerning the Divine nature," we said then, and now say 
again, " Is it possible for our weakness to suggest the idea 
of omnipotence ? Our utter ignorance of the future to 
suggest the idea of absolute prescience ? Our very limited 
knowledge, our ignorance and blindness, I had almost said, 
to suggest the idea of omniscience ? Is it possible for a 
being who, by his very nature, is necessarily confined to a 
given point of space at every given moment of time, to 
derive from this same nature the idea of omnipresence ? 
WiU he not rather argue, * If I, who am a spirit, am, by 
my very nature, necessarily confined to a given point of 
space, at every given point of time, every spirit is subject 
to the same limitation ; but God is a spirit, ergo, God is 
confined to a given point of space at every given point of 
time.' Thus arguing from his own nature, and from that 
of all other creatures, however exalted, he legitimately 
reaches the conclusion that God is not omnipresent, is not 
omniscient, is not omnipotent ; in a word, is a located and 
limited being. Nor is it possible for any creature, how- 
ever exalted, to derive from itself, or from any other crea- 
3 



50 watson's theological institutes 

ture, or from any number of creatures, the idea of the God 
of the Bible : for it is not possible to derive from anything 
what it does not possess. Creation, however extensive, is 
limited, and would be, if it were ten thousand times more 
extensile than it is. And being limited, it cannot give the 
idea of the unlimited ; being finite^ it cannot impart the 
idea of the Inpinite : because, we repeat, it cannot possibly 
impart what it does not possess. It follows, then, that so 
sure as we have the true idea of the true God, so sure we 
have it from himself originally^ and directly. We say di- 
rectly ; by which we mean, it was not inferred by any in- 
telligent creature from its own nature, nor yet from the 
nature and extent of creation at large ; for there was not, 
and could not be, anything in either, or in both, that could 
suggest the idea of omnipresence, omniscience, or omni- 
potence. In a word, nothing that could suggest the idea 
of the unlimited^ the Infinite / for whatever be the nature 
and extent of creation, still it must be limited^ still it must 
"bQ finite ; and consequently, we repeat it yet again, could 
not possibly suggest the idea of the unlimited, of the In- 
finite ; and what cannot suggest the idea of the unlimited^ 
the Infinite, cannot suggest the idea of the God of the 
Bible ; for the suggestion, the idea, that stops short of 
this, stops infinitely short of the true God ! 

If Mr. C. had confined himself to what he considered 
objectionable in Watson's Metaphysics, or Institutes, our 
course, like his in that case, would have been straight- 
forward. But this he has not done. The fact is, his article 
contains a mere exhibit, and an attempted defence of the 
teachings, the most extravagant teachings, of transcend- 
ental philosophy, accompanied by a marvellous represent- 
ation, or rather, misrepresentation, of the philosophical and 
theological teachings of Richard Watson. Hitherto we 



AlfD THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 51 

have confined our attention principally to- the former, now 
we will give our attention principally to the latter. 

In listening to the charges brought against the author 
of the Institutes, we purpose to place him. upon his trial 
alone, and of the people there shall be none with him ; not 
even the empirical or sensational philosophers, amongst 
whom Mr. C. has forced him to dwell like the psalmist 
" in the tents of Kedar." 

Instead of listening to general and sweeping charges 
brought against Watson on the assumption that he be- 
longed to a certain school of philosophers, we will now 
hear such specific charges as may be brought against Wat- 
son himself. 

On 'p. 185, Mr. C. continues to bring his sweeping 
charges against Watson thus : " That Watson was, in phi- 
losophy, a sensationalist, must, we think, be evident to 
every discriminating mind furnished with even a very 
slender acquaintance with the history of modern philoso- 
phy. A careful perusal of the chapters ' On the Presump- 
tive Evidences,' in Part I, the chapter * On the Existence 
of God,' in Part II, and the first chapter of Part III, * On 
the Moral Law,' will be decisive of this question in every 
intelligent mind. He affirms, with earnestness and em- 
phasis, that we have no idea of God, of right and wrong, 
and of immortality, except as derived from without by in- 
struGtion and verbal revelation / that, indeed, we have no 
faculty ofknoioing on any of these subjects except faith." 
In proof of the truthfulness of these charges, general 
charges as usual, he refers us to the Institutes, vol. i, pages 
10, 11, 272, and 274, and gives us the following as specifi- 
cations : " We are all conscious that we gain our knowledge 
of God by instruction. . . . We owe our knowledge of the 
existence of God and of his attributes to revelation alone." 



52 watson's theological institutes 

He also gives us the following as the words of Ellis, and as 
being apj^roved by Watson : " God is the only way to 
himself; he cannot be in the least come at, defined, or 
demonstrated by human reason." He then charges Wat- 
son with asserting, at page 10, vol. i, " that wo ^Am^ appears 
in the constitution of nature, or in the proceedings of the 
Divine administration, to indicate it to be the will of God 
that the appetites should be restrained within the rules 
of sobriety, except that, by a connection which has been 
established by him, the excessive indulgence of those, ap- 
petites usually impairs health." . . . The design of the 
whole of this chapter ii," continues the reviewer, "is to 
prove 'that the rule which determines the quality of moral 
action must be presumed to be matter of [oral] revelation 
from God.' " Finally, as a quotation from page 11, vol. i, 
w^e have the following : " All observation lies directly 
against the doctrine of the immortality of man. He dies ! 
and the probabilities of a future life, which have been 
established upon the unequal distribution of rewards and 
punishments in this life, and the capacities of the human 
soul, are a presumptive evidence which has been adduced 
only by those to whom the doctrine had been transmitted 
by tradition^ and Were, therefore, in possession of the 
idea." Our reviewer now reaches this sweeping and mar- 
vellous conclusion : " It is, therefore, but natural that he 
should enter his solemn protest against the attempt to con- 
struct a science of istatueal theology, or of moral 
PHILOSOPHY, as a design which is not only ' visionary and 
impossible, but of mischievous tendency,' and they who are 
engaged in it are accessary to the infidel crusade against 
the word of God." 

Now although we profess to have a " slender acquaint- 
ance with the history of modern philosophy," and with that 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 63 

of ancient philosophy too ; and though we profess to have 
?i\iit\Q. intelligence and discrimmatioJi, yet, after "a care- 
ful 23erusal of the chapters " referred to by the reviewer, 
and of all other parts of the Institutes, we confess we 
have utterly failed to lind the errors which the reviewer 
professes to have found there. On the contrary, we are 
more and more convinced of the soundness and of the im- 
portance of both the theological and philosophical teach- 
ings of the Institutes. Nor do we hesitate to express 
our deep conviction that the chapters referred to are spe- 
cially/ important ; because truth specially/ important, and 
error specially dangerous, are there set forth — the former 
defended, and the latter exposed — by a pen evidently wield- 
ed by a master's hand ; not by the hand of an empiric ! 
We have also to object to what are given above as quota- 
tions from the chapters referred to, because, though they 
profess to be accurate quotations, they are not ; but are 
very inaccurate, so much so, that we are convinced no one 
by reading them would obtain, to say the very least, a cor- 
rect knowledge of the teachings of Richard Watson. 

The design of chap, ii, vol. i, of the Institutes is thus 
given by Mr. C. in the quotation given above : " The de- 
sign of the whole of this chapter ii is to prove ' that the 
rule which determines the quality of moral action must be 
presumed to be matter of [oral] revelation from God.' " 
The design of the same chapter is thus given by its author 
in the closing paragraph : 

"The whole of this argument is designed to prove that, 
had we been left, for the regulation of our conduct, to infer 
the will and purposes of the Supreme Being from his natu- 
ral works and his administration of the affairs of the world, 
our knowledge of both w^ould have been essentially defi- 
cient ; and it establishes a strong presumption in favor of 



54 watson's theological institutes 

a direct revelation from God to his creatures, that neither 
his will concerning us, nor the hope of forgiveness, might 
be left to dark and uncertain inference, but be the subjects 
of an express declaration." 

Kow we think that Mr. Watson knew the design of his 
own argument quite as well as Mr. Cocker, and if the latter 
considered that design pernicious, he should have given it 
to his readers in the author's own words, and then point out 
its pernicious character, and not set up a man of straw of 
his own making and fight that as though he were fighting 
Mr. Watson. Why Mr. C. has done the latter and not the 
former we will not take upon us to say, but we must say 
that by doing so he has misrepresented Mr. Watson and 
led his readers, w^ho were not acquainted with Mr. Wat- 
son's writings, astray. And we say, too, that to object to 
the teaching of Mr. Watson, in this chapter, as set forth in 
his own words, is virtually to take the position of infidels 
and deists, who hold that the book of nature is suflScient, 
and that the book of revelation consequently is, to say the 
least, superfluous and uncalled for. We have this moment 
looked over the chapter again, and find that the argument 
is directed to these very characters. Hence, the following 
quotation from Bolingbroke, in a note at the foot of page 
9 : "By employing our reason to collect the will of God 
from the fund of our nature, physical and moral, we may 
acquire not only a particular knowledge of those laws which 
are deducible from them, but a general knowledge of 
the manner in which God is pleased to exercise his su- 
preme powers in this system." Thus, in opposition to Bol- 
ingbroke and all others who assert that " our reason can 
collect the wUl of God from the fund of our nature," and, 
consequently, that a written revelation is not necessary, 
Mr. Watson asserts the necessity of a direct revelation, 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 55 

and by a masterly and most conclusive argument lie estab- 
lishes his position, as we will now show. 

The question to be discussed is thus stated by Mr. 
Watson on page 10, vol. i : " Are there, in the natural 
works of God, or in his manner of governing the world, 
such indications of the will of God concerning us, as can 
aflbrd sufficient direction in forming a perfectly virtuous 
character^ and sufficient information as to the means by 
which it is to be affected ? " ISTow the reviewer of Watson 
takes the negative or the positive of this question ; if the 
negative^ he is one with Watson, and there is no dispute : 
if the positive^ then he occupies the position of Boling- 
broke and all others who reject a direct revelation, as be- 
ing unnecessary, to say the least, and hold natural reason 
and the book of nature to be sufficient for these purposes ; 
the latter, of course, is the reviewer's position. The reader 
now sees, beyond the possibility of mistake, the true posi- 
tion of Watson, and that of his reviewer, and can take 
which side he pleases. To assist him, however, in his 
choice, we will give an outline of the argument. We do 
this the more readily, because the reviewer professes to 
find so much deadly error in this chapter, as is seen in the 
quotations which we have given above. 

*' The Theist will himself acknowledge that temperance, 
justice^ and benevolence are essential to moral virtue." 

Mr. Watson now proceeds to show that the indications 
of the constitution of nature, and of God's natural govern- 
ment, in favor of temperance, are not sufficient for the pur- 
pose, and concludes by saying : " The rule is therefore im- 
perfect." The capitals are mine : my object is to fix the 
attention of the reader upon the point that Watson claims 
to have established. The rule is imperfect : that is all ; it 
requires a direct revelation from God to afford fallal man 



66 Watson's theological iNSTiTufts 

a PERFECT rule of temperance. The next element in " a per- 
fectly virtuous character " is justice. Mr. W. goes on to 
say that neither " are the obligations of justice in this way 
indicated with adequate CLEAnisrESS ; " and closes his argu- 
ment on this point thus : " Rules of justice, therefore, thus 
indicated would, like those of temperance, be very imper- 
fect." He now takes up the third element, and with his 
characteristic clearness conducts his argument to this con- 
clusion : "The rule would therefore be uncertain and 
DARK, and ENTIRELY SILENT as to the extent to which benefi- 
cence is to be carried, and whether there may not be ex- 
ceptions to its exercise as to individuals, such as enemies, 
vicious persons, and strangers.'''' Concerning all the indica- 
tions of God's will, in the ways above specified, he con- 
cludes thus : " It follows then that they form a rule too 
vague in itself, and too liable to different interpretations to 
place the conduct of men under adequate regulation, even 
in respect of temperance^ justice, and benevolence.''^ Mr. 
Watson now goes on to show that the information derived 
from the aforementioned sources is still more defective as 
to other and still more vital points. 

" For instance," he says, " there is no indication in either 
nature or providence that it is the will of God that his 

creatures should worship him There is no indication 

that God will be approached in prayer Nor is there a 

sufiicient indication of a future state of rewards and punish- 
ment, because there is no indubitable declaration of man's 
immortality, nor any facts and principles so obvious as to 
enable us confidently to infer it. Hence some of the wisest 
heathens, who were not wholly unaided in their specula' 
tions on these subjects by the reflected light of revelation, 
confessed themselves unable to come to any satisfactory 
conclusion. The doubts of Socrates, who expressed him- 



^ AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 57 

self the most hopeful of any on the subject of a" future life, 
are well known ; and Cicero, who occasionally expatiates 
with so much eloquence on this topic, shows by the skep- 
tical expressions which he throws in that his belief was by 
no means confirmed." Here follow some of Cicero's own 
words with regard to the human soul after the present life : 

" Show me first, if you can, and if it be not too trouble- 
some, that souls remain after death ; or, if you cannot 
prove that (for it is difficult), declare how there is no evil 
in death." 

" If, therefore," continues Mr. Watson, *' without any 
help from direct or traditional instruction, we could go as 
far as they, it is plain that our religious system would W 
deficient in all those motives to virtue which arise from t'iA 
doctrine of man's accountability and a future life, and in 
that moral control which such doctrines exert, the neces- 
sity of which for the moral government of the world is 
sufficiently proved by the wickedness which prevails even 
where these doctrines are fully taught." 

" Still further," continues our author, " there is nothing 
in those manifestations of God and of his will which the 
most attentive contemplatist can be supposed to collect 
from his natural works and from his sovereign rule, to affiDrd 
the hope of pardon to any one who is conscious of having 
offended him, or any assurance of felicity in a future state, 
should one exist." 

Our author now goes on to show, in a very forcible and 
pathetic manner, how impossible it is for the sinner to 
obtain from such sources even a hope that his offences will 
be forgiven. " All observation and experience," he says, 
" lie agamst this ; and the case is the more alarming to a 
considerate mind, that so little of the sad inference that the 
human race is under a rigorous administration,* depends 



68 watson's theological institute 

upon reasoning and opinion : it is a fact of common and 
daily observation. The minds of men in general are a prey 
to discontent and care, and are agitated by various evil 
passions. The race itself is doomed to wasting labors of 
the body or the mind, in order to obtain subsistence. 
Their employments are for the most part low and grovel- 
ling, in comparison of the capacity of the soul for intellec- 
tual pleasures and attainments. The mental powers, though 
distributed with great equality among the various classes 
of men, are only in the case of a few individuals ever 
awakened. The pleasures most strenuously sought are, 
therefore, sensual, degrading, and transient. Life itself, 
\oo, is precarious ; infants suffer and die, youth is bhghted, 
and thus by far the greater part of mankind is swept away 
before the prime of life is attained. Casualties, plagues, 
famines, floods, and war carry on the work of destruction." 
Our author goes on thus to eumerate painful facts similar 
to the above, and adds, " The very rehgions of the world 
have completed human wretchedness by obdurating the 
heart, by giving birth to sanguinary superstitions, and by 
introducing a corruption of morals destructive of th6 very 
elements of well ordered society. Part of these evils are 
permitted by the Supreme Governor, and part inflicted. . . . 
But whether permitted or inflicted, they are punitive acts 
of his administration, and present him before us, notwith- 
standing innumerable instances of his benevolence, as a 
Being of terrible majesty." 

So close is the argument in this chapter, and so much 
to the j^oint is all that is said, and so important withal, that 
we would like to give the whole of it ; but as that cannot 
be, we find it difficult to decide what should be left out. 

Our author goes on to show how unsuccessful have been 
the efforts of great men "to remove in part the awful 



• AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 59 

mystery which overhangs such an administration," without 
the light of a direct revelation from God ; and, admitting 
that we were even certain of existing in a future state, he 
closes this part of the argument by saying, " The idea of 
a future life does not, therefore, relieve the case. If it be 
just that man should be punished here, it may be required 
by the same just regard to the principles of a strictly moral 
government that he should be punished hereafter." Thus 
darkness still rests upon the future, and, at best, fallen man 
has too much reason to fear the worst. Hence " The The- 
ist," continues our author, " in order to support this hope 
[of a future life], dwells upon the proofs of the goodness of 
God with which this world abounds, but shuts his eyes 
upon the demonstrations of his severity ; yet these sur- 
round him as well as the other, and the argument from the 
severity of God is as forcible against pardon as the argu- 
ment from his goodness is in its favor. At the best it is 
left entirely uncertain ; a ground is laid for heart-rending 
doubts and fearful anticipations ; and, for anything he can 
show to the contrary, the goodness which God has display- 
ed in nature and providence may only render the offence 
of man more aggravated, and serve to strengthen the pre- 
sumption against the forgiveness of a icilful offender, 
rather than afford him any reason for hope." Here follows 
the concluding paragraph, in which the author specifies the 
design of the lohole argximent. This paragraph we have 
given above. 

Such is the chapter in which the reviewer professes to 
have found so much error. Such is the design of the chap- 
ter, and such is the argument which our author employs to 
support his position, all of which we pronounce worthy of 
the author of the Theological' Institutes, and supported 
by Scripture and experience. 



60 watson's theological institutes 



CHAPTER 11. 

In proof of the charges already cited, we are referred "to 
the chapter * On the Existence of God,' in Part II." This 
chapter contains 203 pages, yet the reviewer gives us only 
two quotations. One from page 274, so broken from its 
connection as to give no correct idea of Mr. "Watson's argu- 
ment, and the other from Ellis, on page 272, in these 
words: " God is the only way to himself; he cannot be i?i 
the least come at, defined, or demonstrated by human 
reason." 

I do not see that these words of Ellis teach anything 
different from the following scriptures : " No one knoweth 
the Son but the Father ; neither knoweth any one the 
Father save the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal 
Him." . . . . " Flesh and blood hath not revealed it [this 
knowledge] unto thee, but my Father, which is in heaven." 
. . . . " No man hath seen God at any time ; the only be- 
gotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath 
declared Him." (Matt, xi, 27 ; xvi, 17 ; John i, 18.) 

The question is not as to whether there is something 
eternal, for that will not admit of dispute. The question 
is, as Dr. Samuel Clarke observes, as to the charactek of 
that eternal. The reasoning of Ellis, from which the above 
words are quoted, involves the simple question, whether it 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 61 

is in the power of the human reason to originate the con- 
ception of the Eternal God, the God of the Bible, clothed, 
as he is, with infinite perfections, natural and moral ; whether 
the unassisted reason could derive the knowledge of such 
a being from the phenomena of creation. Mr. EUis takes 
the negative of this question, and reasons thus : " Where 
would the inquirer fix his beginning ? He is to search for 
something, he knows not what ; a nature without known 
properties, a being without a name. It is impossible for 
such a person to declare or imagine what it is he would 
discourse of, or inquire into ; a nature he has not the least 
apprehension of; a subject he has not the least glimpse of, 
in whole or in part, which he must separate from all doubt, 
inconsistencies, and errors ; he must demonstrate without 
one known sure principle to ground it upon, and draw 
certain necessary conclusions whereon to rest his judgment, 
without the least knowledge of one term or proposition to 
fix his procedure upon, and, therefore, can never know 
whether his conclusions be consequent or not consequent, 
truth or falsehood, which is just the same in science as in 
architecture, to raise a building without a foundation." 

I^ow it is much easier to quote two lines from this 
noble production, and then pronounce its author and its 
admirers sensationalists, than it is to answer the manly 
If-easoning contained therein ; but while the former is much 
the easiest, the latter would certainly be much the noblest 
way of disposing of it, and we think the safest too. In the 
mean time we are free to confess that we admire Ellis as 
well as Watson, at least so far as the above goes, for 
therein we think he appears to good advantage. 

But seeing the reviewer asserts that "a careful peru- 
sal " of this, and the . other chapters specified, " will be 
decisive of this question in every intelligent mind," we will 



62 WATSOn's THEOLOaiCAL mSTITUTES 

now examine it, and see whether it contains the error which 
we have failed to find in the chapters " On the Presump- 
tive Evidences." This important chapter commences thus: 

" The Divine, authority of those writings which are 
received by Christians as a revelation of infallible truth, 
having been established, our next step is seriously, and 
with simplicity of mind, to examine their contents, and to 
collect from them that ample information on religious and 
moral subjects which they profess to contain, and in which 
it had become necessary that the world be supernaturally 
instructed." Mark, supernaturally instructed. 

Such is the work which our author pro]DOSes to accom- 
plish in this chapter ; let this work, as here specified, be 
carefully noticed and kept in view. What is proposed in 
this chapter is simply this : the '' Divine authority " of the 
sacred writings being established, we are " to collect from 
them that ample information on religious and moral sub- 
jects which they profess to contain." 

" The doctrine w^hich the first sentence in this Divine 
revelation unfolds," namely, " that there is a God,, the 
Creator of heaven and earth^'' is the first doctrine taken 
up. " In three distinct ways," he continues, '' do the 
sacred writers furnish us with information on this p-reat 
and essential subject, the existence and the character of 
God!" Mark the knowledge for which, it is claimed, \\« 
are indebted to a direct revelation from God : the hnoiol- 
edge of a God possessing the character here described. 
The three ways in which the sacred writers furnish this 
knowledge are thus specified : " From the names by which 
he is designated ; from the actions ascribed to him ;^ and 
from the attributes with which he is invested in their 
invocations and praises, and in those lofty descriptions of 
his nature which, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 63 

they have recorded for the Id struction of the world 

The names of God recorded in Scripture convey at once 
ideas of overwhehning greatness and glory, mingled with 
tKat awful mysteriousness with which, to all finite minds, 
and especially to the minds of mortals, the Divine essence 
and mode of existence must ever be invested." Here 
follow some of the principal names of the Almighty, such 
as Elohim, Jehovah, El, Ehieh, Shaddai, Adon. Then 
follow the names of this Almighty Being as given in the 
thirty-fourth chapter of Exodus, with their import as given 
by Dr. Adam Clarke. Here our author specifies some of 
those sublime ideas of God which the sacred writers derive 
from his actions. " More at large," he continues, " do we 
learn what God is, from the declarations of the inspired 
writings." Here he furnishes us with numerous quotations 
from the Old and ISTew Testaments, containing declarations 
which convey the most lofty conceptions of the Divine 
attributes, both natural and moral ; adding : " Under these 
deeply awful, but consolatory views, do the Scriptures 
present to us the supreme object of our worship and trust, 
dwelling upon each of the above particulars with inimitable 
sublimity and beauty of language, and with an inexhaust- 
ible variety of illustration ; nor can we compare these 
views of the Divine nature with the conceptions of the 
most enlightened of pagans, without feeling how much, 
reason we have for everlasting gratitude that a revelation 
so explicit and so compreJiensivie should have been made 
to us on a subject which only a revelation from God him- 
self could have made known." Mark the sum of all that 
is claimed in the above : " only a revelation from God 
himself" could give us those sublime conceptions of the 
nature and attributes of the God of the Bible, as here 
specified. Hence he adds : " It is thus that Christian 



64 Watson's theological institutes 

philosophers, even when they do not use the language of 
the Scriptures, are able to speak on this great and myste- 
rious doctrine in language so clear and with conceptions ^so 
noble ; in a manner too so equahle^ so different to the sages 
of antiquity, who, if at any time they approach the truth, 
when speaking of the Divine nature, never fail to mingle 
with it some essentially erroneous or grovelling concep- 
tion." Confirmatory of these remarks, some fine specimens 
from the writings of Dr. Barrow, Bishop Pearson, Lawson, 
and Sir Isaac Newton, are now furnished. 

Our author now notices the fact "that neither Moses, 
the first of the inspired penmen, nor any of the authors of 
the succeeding canonical books, enters into any proof of 
this first principle of religion, there is a QodP " There is 
indeed," he adds, " in the sacred volume no allusion to the 
existence of atheistical sentiments till some ages after 
Moses, and then it is not quite clear whether speculative or 
practical Atheism be spoken of. From this circumstance 
we learn that, previous to the time of Moses, the idea of 
one supreme and infinitely perfect God was familiar to men, 
that it had descended to them from the earliest ages ; and 
also that it was a truth of original revelation,, and not one 
which sages of preceding times hnd wrought out by 
rational investigation and deduction." " ISTo man," he 
observes, " claims to have made any such discovery ; had 
any one man done so, some grateful mention of so great a 
sage, of so celebrated a moral teacher, would have been 
made." " If those views of God which are found in the 
Pentateuch had been discovered by the successful investi- 
gations of wise men among the ancients, the progress of this 
wonderful discovery would have been marked by Moses." 
The way in which a clear knowledge of the God of the Bible 
was communicated to man, is thus stated : " The first man, 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 65 

we are informed, knew God, not only from his works, but 
by sensible manifestation and converse ; the same Divine , 
appearances were made to Noah, to Abraham, to Isaac, to 
Jacob ; and when Moses Avrote, persons were still living 
who had conversed with those who conversed with God or 
were descended from the same families to whom God, ' at 
sundry times ^ had appeared in visible glory, or in angelic 
forms. These Divine manifestations were also matters of 
public notoriety among the primitive families of mankind." 
The idea being once communicated to mankind, it " was 
confirmed," he adds, " by every natural object which they 
saw around them." 

" That the idea of the Supreme First Cause was at first 
obtained by the exercise of reason, is thus contradicted by 
the facts, that the first man received the knowledge of God 
by sensible converse with him, and that this doctrine was 
transmitted, with the confirmation of successive visible 
manifestations, to the early ancestors of all nations. 
"Whether the discovery, therefore, of the simple truth of 
the existence of a first cause be within the compass of 
human powers, is a point which cannot be determined by 
matter of fact; because it may be proved that those 
nations by whom that doctrine has been acknowledged, 
had their origin from a common stock, resident in that 
part of the world in which the primitive revelations were 
given. They were therefore never in circumstances in 
which such an experiment upon the power or weakness of 
the human mind could be made." It is declared probable 
that there are some in whose minds " the idea of a Supreme 
Being is entirely obliterated ; although some notion of spir- 
itual existences superior in power to man still remains ; " but 
our author declares it to be a fact, that no man, having lost 
the knowledge of the true God, has ever been able, of him- 



66 watson's theological destitutes 

self, to recover it again. He then finally closes thus : " Mat- 
ter of fact does not therefore support the notion, that the 
existence of God is discoverable by the unassisted faculties 
of man ; and there is, I conceive, very slender reason to ad- 
mit the abstract probability." (Pp. 263 to 271.) Such is the 
modest conclusion reached by Mr. Watson, after presenting 
such arguments and facts as the above. Yet in the face of 
all this, the author of the review, page 188, represents him 
as saying on page 270, vol. i, that " the simple truth of the 
existence of a first cause is not within the compass of 
human powers." There is no such statement there ! The 
words of Watson on page 270, and his final conclusion on 
page 271, we have given above : the reader can compare. 
And as to the errors which the reviewer professes to have 
found in this chapter, we will only say here, as yet we 
have found none of them. With Watson we claim it to be 
a simj)le fact that the knowledge of God was originally 
communicated to man in the way here specified, that 
Moses found man in possession of the idea, that there is no 
intimation of any man claiming the honor of having origi- 
nated it, that where the knowledge of God was once lost, 
unassisted reason has never recovered it again. When 
opposite facts are adduced we will conclude Mr. Watson is 
wrong ; as yet we hold that his arguments^ his facts^ and 
his conclusions are unrefuted, and, in fact, untouched ! 

On page 271, Mr. Watson goes on to reason thus: "If 
therefore we suppose a first cause to be discoverable by 
human investigation, we must seek for the instances among 
a people whose civilization and intellectual culture have 
roused the mind from its torpor, and given it an interest in 
abstract and philosophic truth ; for to a people so circum- 
stanced as never to have heard of God, the question of the 
existence of a first cause must be one of mere philosophy." 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 67 

But where the idea of a God is not, he argues, men could 
never rise to such a state of mental culture and civilization. 
For " a mere barbarian," " without " any " degree of edu- 
cation," would be incapable " of such a course of inquiry as 
might lead him to a knowledge of God." A person so ig- 
norant and degraded " would be wholly occupied with the 
gratification of his appetites or his sloth. Should we how- 
ever suppose it possible, that those who had no previous 
knowledge of God, or of superior invisible powers, might 
be brought to the habits of civil hfe, and be engaged in the 
pursuit of various knowledge (which itself however is very 
incredible), it would still remain a question whether, pro- 
vided no idea from tradition or instruction had been sug- 
gested of the existence of spiritual superior beings, or of a 
Supreme Creator or Ruler, such a truth would be within the 
reach of men, even in an imperfect form. We have already 
seen, that a truth may appear exceedingly simple, import- 
ant, and evident, when once known, and on this account 
its demonstration may be considered easy, which neverthe- 
less has been the result of much previous research on the 
part of the discoverer. The abundant rational evidence of 
the existence of a God, which may now be easily collected, 
and which is so convincing, is therefore no proof that with- 
out instruction from heaven the human mind would ever 
have made the discovery." Here follows the quotation from 
Ellis, which we have already given. Also quotations from 
Hare, Yan Mildert, and Gleig's " Stackhouse Intro.," each 
the production of a master mind, and all designed to estab- 
lish the same proposition ; yet our author, with great mod- 
esty, simply says of the whole : " These observations have 
great weight, and though we allow that the argument 
which proves that the effects with which we are surrounded 
must have been caused, and thus leads us up through a 



68 watson's theological institutes 

chain of subordinate causes to one First Cause, has in it a 
simplicity, ati obviousness, and a force, which when we are 
previously furnished with the idea of God, makes it at first 
sight difficult to conceive, that men, under any degree of 
cultivation, should be inadequate to it ; yet, if the human 
mind ever commenced such an inquiry at all, it is highly 
probable that it would rest in the notion of an eternal suc' 
cession of causes and efiects, rather than acquire the ideas 
of creation in the proper sense, and of a Supreme Cre- 
ator." 

The amount is this : to be able to investigate so as to 
originate a knowledge of God implies a state of mind that 
we have no reason to believe could exist where, as yet, the 
idea of a God did not exist. But should we even suppose 
this possible, it would still remain a question whether such 
a discovery were possible ; for if such a mind should ever 
commence " such an inquiry at all, it is highly probable 
that it would rest in the notion of an eternal succession of 
causes and effects, rather than acquire the ideas of creation 
in the proper sense, and of a Supreme Creator." In proof of 
this he says : " Scarcely any of the philosophers of the most 
inquisitive ages of Greece, or those of their followers at 
Rome, though with the advantage of traditions conveying 
the knowledge of God, seem to have been capable of con- 
ceiving of creation out of nothing, and they consequently 
admitted the eternity of matter. This was equally the 
case with the theistical, the atheistical, and the polytheist- 
ical philosophers. It was not among them a subject of dis- 
pute ; but taken for a point settled and not to be contra- 
dicted, that matter was eternal, and could not therefore be 
created." In support of this the following quotation from 
Leland's " Necessity of Revelation " is given by Mr. "Wat- 
son ; " Few, if any, of the ancient pagan philosophers ac- 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 69 

knowledged God to be, in the most proper sense, the Cre- 
ator of the world. By calling him Ar}ixLovpyo<;, * the maker 
of the world,' they did not mean that he brought it out of 
non-existence into being, but only that he built it out of 
pre-existent materials, and disposed it into ^ regular form 
and order." " This was the opinion of Plato," says Mr. 
W., vol. i, p. 21, "who has been called the Moses of philos- 
ophers. Through the whole Timceus, Plato supposes two 
eternal and independent causes of all things : one, that by 
which all things are made, which is God ; the other, that 
from which all things are made, which is matter. Dr. Cud- 
worth has in vain attempted to clear Plato of this charge. 
The learned Dr. Thomas Burnet, who was well acquainted 
with the opinions of the ancients, says that * the Ionic, 
Pythagoric, Platonic, and Stoic, all agreed in asserting the 
eternity of matter ; and that the doctrine, that matter was 
created out of nothing, seems to have been unknown to the 
philosophers, and is one of which they had no notion. 
Aristotle asserted the eternity of the world, both in matter 
and form too, which was but an easy deduction from the 
former principle, and is sufficiently in proof of its atheistical 
tendency." The fact is, this idea, and a proper idea of the 
true God, cannot possibly exist in the same mind at the 
same time ; either one must necessarily exclude the other. 
Hence all who believed thus must have been ignorant of the 
true God. 

" Since the revelation of truth to man," continues our 
author, " philosophy has been able to adduce a very satis- 
factory argument " against the above notion ; " but, though 
it is not a very recondite one, it was never discovered by 
philosophy while unaided by the Scriptures. In like man- 
ner philosophy can 7iow furnish cogent arguments against 
an infinite succession of causes and effects ; but it does not 



70 watson's theological institutes 

appear probable that they could have been apprehended 
by those to whom the very notion of a First Cause had not 
been intimated. If, however, it were conceded that some 
glimmering of this great truth might, by induction, have 
been discovered by contemplative minds thus circum- 
stanced, by wBat means could they have demonstrated to 
themselves that that great collection of bodies which we 
call the world had but one Creator ; that he is an incorpo- 
real s]3irit ; that he is eternal, self-existent, immortal, and 
independent ? Certain it is, that the argument a posteriori 
does not of itself fully confirm all these conclusions; and 
the argument a priori^ when directed to these mysterious 
points, is not, with all the advantages which we enjoy, so 
satisfactory as to leave no rational ground of doubt as to 
its conclusiveness. INTo sober man, we apprehend, would 
be content with that as the only foundation of his faith and 
hope." 

]N"ow, after producing all these fine arguments on the 
topics here specified, and after corroborating them with so 
many facts as to what the wisest of the heathen philoso- 
phers did and did not believe, and as to what they utterly 
failed to discover; our author, with his characteristic 
modesty and caution, only questions the possibility of fallen 
man being able to originate the idea of a creation and of a 
creator y in the proper sense. This much however he does 
assert, finally, viz., that " the argument a posteriori does not 
of itself iwWj confirm all these conclusions [specified page 
274, vol. i] ; and the argument a priori^ when directed to 
these mysterious points, is not, with all the advantages 
which we enjoy, so satisfactory as to leave no rational 
ground of doubt as to its conclusiveness." Let those who 
please take the affirmative of these questions, for our part 
we heartily join with Watson in the negative : and we as 



kNJ) THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 71 

lieartily unite with him in saying, " No sober man, we ap- 
prehend, would be content with that as the only foundation 
of his faith and hope." The truth is, if Mr. Watson's posi- 
tion in every instance were fairly stated and opposed, we 
would be willing to leave the whole with the intelligent 
reader, without any fear as to the result. But while Mr. 
Watson simply questions the possibility of fallen man's 
rising " to a state of civil and scientific cultivation," with- 
out even the idea of a God, and then, assuming this to be 
possible, simply says "it would still remain a question" 
whether by his investigations he would reach the idea of 
creation and creator in the proper sense, or whether he 
" would rest in the notion of an eternal succession of causes 
and effects ; " I say while Mr. Watson simply does this, pro- 
ducing, as some of his reasons for taking this ground, the 
unsuccessful efforts of the wisest philosophers of antiquity, 
Mr. Cocker represents him as asserting what he never did 
assert, as we have already shown, and will show more fuUy 
immediately. That man had the idea originally and direct- 
ly from God himself, and, consequently, that he had not 
the chance to originate it even if he originally had the 
ability, and that he never has, by his unassisted reason, re- 
covered the idea when once it was lost, Mr. Watson asserts 
to be facts ! And, in harmony herewith, he denies (page 
274) that the idea of God is innate, " If indeed the idea 
of God were innate^'' he says, "as some have contended, 
the question would be set at rest. But then every human 
being would be in possession of it. Of this there is not 
only no proof at all, but the evidence of fact is against it ; 
and the doctrine of innate ideas may with confidence be 
pronounced a mere theory, assumed to support favorite 
notions, but contradicted by all experience." Mark, he still 
deals in facts \ that every human being is in possession of 



Y2 Watson's theological institutes 

the idea of God, which would be the fact if the idea were 
innate, is not only destitute of all proof, but the evidence 
of fact is against it." The following are some of the facts 
adduced. "Peter the wild boy, who in the beginning of 
the last century was found in a wood in Germany, far from 
having an innate sense of God or religion, seemed to be in- 
capable of instruction ; and the aboriginal inhabitants of 
New Holland are found, at this day, in a state of knowl- 
edge but little superior, and certainly have no idea of the 
existence of one Supreme Creator." And this, observe, is 
the point in dispute. In favor of this, argues our author 
there is " no proof at all," there is not one fact to support 
it: while against it there is much evidence, there are posi- 
tive facts ; and some of the facts are here given. And to 
these may be added all the atheists that ever lived, all those 
fools who have said in their hearts, " There is no God ; " 
for if the idea of God is innate^ is intuitive^ as Mr. Watson 
denies, and as his opponents assert, there could be no athe- 
ists, and to assert this is to assert what is contrary to matter 
of fact and the word of God. Yet notwithstanding this, 
some have doubted, or at least professed to doubt, whether 
there ever was an atheist, and they have done so, probably, 
rather than give up the notion here opposed ; for if this 
notion, that the idea of God is innate, be true, there could 
be no atheist. But surely Yanini was an atheist, and so 
obstinate was he that rather than admit the being of a God 
he suffered himself to be burnt at Paris, February 19th, 
1619. And what better was Rabshakeh, or his master the 
king of Assyria, who said they had whipped " the gods of 
the nations," and the God of Israel should fare no better ? 
Their knowledge, whether intuitive or not,, served them to 
little purpose when they could see no difference between 
the God of Israel and the gods of Hamath, Arphad, Seph- 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 73 

arvaim, Gozan, Haran, and Rezeph : these gods, said the 
king of Assyria, could not deliver their people out of my 
hand, or out of the hand of my fathers ; neither can the 
God of Israel! And this, observe, is a fair specimen of 
the i7ituitions of the heathen generally. I have been at the 
trouble of searchino; out the substance of all that is known 
of the religion and worship of the ancient heathen, and could 
fill a volume with their gross and absurd ideas of the objects 
of their worship, and in the whole volume one correct idea 
of the true God would not be found. Occasionally I find 
some correct ideas, evidently communicated through Israel 
from Israel's God ; but, as Mr. Watson says, they soon cor- 
rupted it, for in every nation they had " gods many, and 
lords many," and the mind that embraced the idea of a 
plurality of gods, could not, of course, at the same time, 
embrace the idea of the God of the Bible. " To show that 
there are real literal atheists in the world," Mr, Wesley 
mentions two whom he knew, and who had confidently 
denied the being of a God for many years : they both lived 
in London. Such too were all those " hell-fire clubs," as 
they were called, in England, Ireland, and Scotland, in the 
last century. Such too were Altamont, D'Alembert, and 
Diderot, notwithstanding their various abilities, natural and 
acquired : the first mentioned especially had great abilities^ 
yet he was an obstinate atheist. And, in short, such were 
multitudes at that time in Great Britain and France, but 
whom we are in the habit of denominating infidels ; they 
were, however, evidently downright atheists. Hence Hume, 
as Mr. Watson observes, denies the axiomatic truth that 
" Nothing exists or comes to pass without a cause." And 
I really do not think we would be far astray, if we were to 
class infidels generally with atheists. I mean such as those 
whom I have heard say, " Nature is God and God is nature." 
4 



74 watson's theological institutes 

The late Robert Owen gives us the meaning of such phra- 
seology in the lips of infidels, in his " Book of the New Moral 
World," pages 65 and 66, where he denies that there is a 
" personal deity," and says, " truth is nature, and nature 
God ; God is truth, and truth is God." With these and similar 
facts, meeting us among every people in every country and 
age, and scattered over almost every page of the history of 
our fallen race, we are forced to say with Watson that " the 
doctrine of innate.ideas may with confidence be pronounced 
a mere theory, assumed to support favorite notions, but 
contradicted by all experience." 

That man is utterly incapable of originating those sub- 
lime ideas of God which are developed in the book of rev- 
elation, is asserted by Watson with the utmost confidence ; 
nor did we suppose that any would join issue with him 
here, unless such as Lord Herbert and his followers, who 
lay it down as a first principle of their religious system that 
"everything necessary to be believed is discoverable by 
the natural faculties." From this principle the conclusion 
is legitimately reached that a revelation is unnecessary. 
" This specious kind of infidelity," says Mr. Watson (page 
236, vol. i), " known by the name of ''Deism^ made its ap- 
pearance in Italy and France about the middle of the six- 
teenth century, and in England early in the seventeenth. 
iJnder this appellation, and that of ' The Religion of 
JsTature,' each adopted to deceive the unwary, the attack 
upon Christianity was at first cautious, and accompanied 
with many professions of regard for its manifold excellen- 
cies." Concerning the above principle of Lord Herbert 
and his followers, which, indeed, is the very basis of all 
infidelity, Mr. Watson further says, on page 237: "The 
history of infidelity from this time is a striking comment 
upon the words of St. Paul, " But evil men and seducers 



AND THE BIBLE* DEFENDED. 75 

shall wax worse and loorse^ deceiving and being deceived.^ " 
In proof of this, he mentions, among other things, the fact 
that " all Lord Herbert's five articles of natural religion 
have been questioned or given up by those who followed 
him in his fundamental principle, i. e., ' that nothing can be 
admitted which is not discoverable by our natural facul- 
ties.' " His five articles were : There is a Supreme God — 
He is chiefly to he loorshipped — Piety and virtue are the 
principal part of his worship — RepentCtnce expiates offence 
— There is a state of future reioards and punishments. But 
even these principles were not retained by those who 
adopted his first principle ; hence Mr. Watson says, " be- 
tween this grand principle of error and absolute atheism 
there are but a few steps." It is in 023position to this prin- 
ciple of error, which is the very basis of infidelity, that Mr. 
Watson asserts our indebtedness to revelation for a correct 
knowledge of God, particularly for those sublime ideas of 
his infinite perfections, developed in the word of God, and 
which we could not j)ossibly originate or derive from the 
works of God. For this " knowledge of the existence of 
God and of his attributes we owe to revelation alone." 
(Page 274.) Accordingly, he says on this same page, " We 
are all conscious that we gain the knowledge of God by 
instruction., and we observe that, in proportion to the 
want of instruction, men are ignorant, as of other things, 
so of God." This knowledge of God and of his attributes, for 
which we are indebted to revelation, and which we receiA^ed 
by instruction, Mr. Watson specifies in a preceding part of 
this chapter, pages 266 and 267, and gives us quotations 
from Barrow, Pearson, Lawson, and IsTewton, to show that, 
for the correct and sublime conceptions of God therein 
contained, they are indebted to revelation ; seeing, as he 
shows, that many of the heathen philosophers who, in 



Y6 watson's theological institutes 

every other respect, were fully their equal, were, neverthe- 
less, painfully destitute of this knowledge, so much so as to 
assert the eternity of matter, and a plurality of gods, and 
doubt, if not deny, everything essential to a. correct reli- 
gious system. Such is Mr. Watson's position, as set forth, 
and we think established, in this chapter, hj facts, by expe- 
7'ience, by observation, and by the ivord of God. If his 
opponents can prove that these four witnesses are in favor 
of their position and against his, we will embrace the doc- 
trine of innate ideas, which we now oppose ; but, as we 
believe this never can be done, and are sure it never has 
been done, we purpose to defend Watson and his position 
to the last. 

Just here we pause to make two remarks which result 
from these investigations. The grand principle of Lord 
Herbert, from which infidelity has legitimately flowed, and 
between which and atheism Mr. Watson says there are but 
a few steps ; I say this great principle of Lord Herbert, 
and the transcendentalism which we here oppose, and 
which Mr. Cocker sets forth and attempts to defend in the 
article under consideration, are essentially o?ie ! To be 
convinced of this, it is only necessary to com^^are that prin- 
ciple, as quoted above, with those quotations which we 
have already given from the article under review, and also 
with those which we will now give. Any one who will be 
at the trouble of comparing will see, I am convinced, that 
Mr. Cocker claims as much in favor of our natural faculties 
as Lord Herbert does. Take the following quotations in 
proof: 

" The idea of God is a necessary deduction from the 
facts of the universe and the primary intuitions of the 

mind It is present in every human mind as the 

germ of the oak. is in the acorn And it is developed 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 7'7 

into scientific form by the necessary laws of intellect, as 
the germ of the oak in the acorn is fully developed under 
the fixed and determinative laws of vegetative life." (Re- 
view, page 197.) "There are specific forms into which 
linman thought must necessarily develop itself, just as a 
grain of wdieat must necessarily develo}^ itself into the 
blade, and the ear, and the full corn in the ear ; or as an 
acorn must develoj) itself into the majestic oak. There are 
fundamental laws of the human intelligence which constrain 
man, in view of the facts of the universe, to form certain 
necessary judgments and beliefs The human intelli- 
gence is configured and correlated to eternal principles of 
order, and right, and good, as they exist in the Infinite In- 
telligence." (P. 183.) So much so that "the mind intui- 
tively apprehends them [our acts] as right or wrong ^ and 
spontaneously aj)proves or condemns them. This distinc- 
tion in the moral quality of actions is felt to be independent 
of the mind which perceives it and of any mutable condi- 
tion of things." See much more of the same kind on page 
205, and which we quoted in another connection. Much 
more follows, but we only add the following : " Accom- 
panying this perception of the immutable distinction be- 
tween virtue and vice, we have the consciousness of its 
being our duty to avoid the one and perform the other. 
We -feel upon us an obligation which is imperative. TVe 
have also an abiding conviction that moral good is reioard- 
able, and that vice merits punishment. And, finally, we 
have a conscious apprehension of a future retrihutionP 

Of course we could easily contradict these high-sound- 
ing assertions, as we have done before, by facts ; but this 
is not what we aim at just now ; we only request the reader 
to compare these, and the quotations of a similar character 
formerly given, with Lord HerberVs grand principle quoted 



78 watson's theological institutes 

above, and we have no doubt that he will be convinced, as 
we are, that the transcendeyitalistn which we here oppose 
is none other than the Herbertism which Watson opposed. 
It comes now, as it did then, with many fair professions 
and imposing titles, but it is the same deadly erroe. 
We will simply add the single remark, that there is one 
point in which our reviewer claims more for the natural 
faculties than Lord H. does. The latter only declares man 
to be capable of these attainments by the exercise of his 
" natural faculties," while the former declares all the attain- 
ments, which he specifies, to be the necessary results of neces- 
sary and fixed laws ! The one says he may, the other says 
he must be all this, independent of revelation. 

Our second remark is this : If Lord Herbert's doctrine 
and the transcendentalism here opposed are essentially one, 
and if the former led to infidelity, and is only a few steps 
from atheism, as Mr. Watson asserts, and history shows, 
the conclusion is inevitable ; this same transcendentalism 
leads to infidelity, notwithstanding its fair pretensions and 
high sounding-titles. That the principle adopted and ad- 
vocated by Lord Herbert led to infidelity in England, and 
to atheism, too, is a fact that will not be disputed by any 
one acquainted with the history of those times. These 
teachings first and principally corrupted the higher ranks 
of society, amongst whom were many real scholars, possess- 
ed of varied and splendid abilities. This ''Religion of Na- 
ture," this Deism^ this philosophy ^ as it was variously called, 
was admirably adapted to flatter their vanity, which in- 
creased more and more till the old Book, called the Bible, 
was utterly rejected as only suitable for the vulgar and the 
superstitious ; while the Book of INTature, which always lay 
open before them, was so worthy the study of the philoso- 
pher, and fully competent to teach them all they desired 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 79 

to know of God and religion. In this book, they contended, 
everything necessary to he believed is discoverable by our 
natural faculties. Amongst those who embraced, and were 
ahuost or utterly ruined by these teachings, were the Hon. 
Francis I^ewport, the Earl of Chesterfield, Sir John Pringle, 
Lord Littleton, the Earl of Rochester, William Emmerson, 
David Hume, Soame Jenyngs, Captain John Lee, and 
many others, amongst whom was an accomphshed youth, 
an account of whom is given us under the fictitious name 
of Antitheus. Some of these were reclaimed, some became 
obstinate atheists, and some ended their miserable life in 
the most terrible agonies of utter despair. And all this re- 
sulted from teachings which, in their beginning, were com- 
paratively plausible, and with which the teachings of mod- 
ern transcendentalism are, as we have shown, essentially 
one ; and, consequently, have the same tendency ; because 
they lead from the Bible, and ascribe to the natural nian^ 
and to the Booh of Nature^ what they do not possess ; be- 
cause they lead man to seek in the natural^ what can only 
be found in the supernatural, Li short, they lead away 
from God while they profess to lead to him ; they ead 
away from " God in Christ," who is " the way, the truth, 
and the life ; " they lead away from the Holy Sj^irit by 
'teaching that the unassisted natural facidties can do what 
they cannot possibly do without the assistance of that 
Spirit. They lead away from the faith of the Christian to 
that of the Deist, by teaching that faith com.eth by seeing 
the icorJcs of God ; ichile Paid teaches that faith conieth by 
hearing the loord of God. Thus we turn the tables by 
showing that transcendentalism — not Watson's philosophy 
■ — tends to infidelity, if not to "pure materialism." And 
in proof of this we have given some terrible instances in 
connection with the history of this error in England, and 



80 watson's theological iI^stitutes 

could give still more numerous and terrible instances con- 
nected with its history in France. 

Having denied that the knowledge of the being and 
attributes of God is innate^ and having asserted our indebt- 
edness to revelation for that knowledge, and having given 
his reasons for so doing, Mr. Watson concludes thus ; " But 
being now discovered, the rational evidence is both copious 
and irresistible ; so much so that Atheism has never been 
able to make much progress among mankind where this 
revelation has been preserved." In proof of this position 
Mr. Watson gives the following quotation from Ellis, and 
we think it is a very forcible expression of the same senti- 
ment : " Tell men there is a God, and their mind embraces 
it as a necessary truth ; nnfold his attributes, and they will 
see the explanation of them in his works. When the foun- 
dation is laid sure and firm that there is a God, and his 
will the cause of all things, and nothing made but by his 
special appointment and command, then the order of be- 
ings will fill their minds with a due sense of the Divine 
Majesty." The amount is. this : the Book of N^ature is read 
in the light of the torch of revelation ; in that light " the 
heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament 
showeth his handiwork." 

Mr. Watson now takes up the arguments a priori and 
a posteriori^ on page 281. The former, he says, "is an 
argument from something antecedent to something con- 
sequent ; from prhiciple to corollary / from cause to effects 
Concerning this argument he says, on page 330 : " It may 
be ranked among the overzealous attempts of the advo- 
cates of truth. It is well intended, but imsatisfactory, and 
so far as on one hand it has led to a neglect of the more 
convincing and powerful course of argument drawn from 
''the things which do appear^"* and on the other, has en- 



I 



AOT) THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 81 

couraged a dependence upon a mode of investigation, to 
which the human mind is inadequate, which in many in- 
stances is an utter mental delusion, and which scarcely two 
minds will conduct in the same manner ; it has probably 
been mischievous in its effects by inducing a scepticism not 
arising out of the nature of the case, but from the imper- 
fect and unsatisfactory investigations of the human under- 
standing, pushed beyond the limit of its power. In most 
instances it is a sword which cuts two ways ; and the mere 
imaginary assumptions of those who think they have found 
out a new way to demonstrate truth, have in many in- 
stances either done disservice to it by absurdity, or yielded 
principles which unbelievers have connected with the most 
injurious conclusions. We need only instance the doctrine 
of the necessary existence of the Deity when reasoned a 
priori.'''' From this doctrine, '''"when reasoned a priori^'''' he 
says, " some acute infidels have drawn the conclusion that 
the Supreme Being cannot be a free agent, and have thus 
set the first principles of religion at variance with the Scrip- 
tures." 

With Mr. Watson's definition and views of the a priori 
argument, as here given, Mr. Cocker has no patience.^ , His 
want of honesty^ it w'ould seem, and his want of intelli- 
gence^ are alike annoying to Mr. C. Hence on page 190, 
he expresses himself thus : "It^would appear from Mr. 
Watson's treatment of this argument that he did not fully 
apprehend it. He characterizes it as an argument from cause 
to effect, whereas it is an argument from a priori truths." 
In addition to the above objections to the a priori argu- 
ment, Mr. Watson says, on page 331 : " But if there is in 
reality nothiog pyrior to the being of God, considered as 
the first cause and causahty, nothing in nature^ nothing in 
reason., then the attempt to argue from it is fruitless ; and 
4* • 



82 watson's theological institutes 

we improperly pretend to search into the grounds or rea- 
sons of the first cause, of whom antecedently we neither do 
nor can know anything." To all this Mr. C. replies thus : 
" What a misa23prehension of the argument ! Surely Mr. 
Watson must have known that the question is not, Is there 
anything prior to God ? but. Are there any a priori truths 
of reason ? To instance one such truth : ' every event must 
have a cause ; ' here is an a priori truth, a necessary belief 
of the human intelligence." Yes, sir, Mr. Watson did know 
very well that the question is not, " Is there anything be- 
fore God ? " Hence he assumes that as a truth acknow- 
ledged on all hands, and from that acknowledged truth he 
both honestly and iiitelligently deduces one of his objec- 
tions to the a priori argument ; therefore the only question 
here, is, whether the deduction is legitimate and conclusive, 
and that we leave the reader to decide, at least for the pres- 
ent. Mr. Watson also knew that the question which he 
was discussing was not, "Are there any dpriori truths of 
reason ? " He was discussing, as the above quotations 
show, the merits of the a priori argument ; nor do we see 
any reason to conclude with Mr. C, from anything Mr. W. 
has said in reference to the a priori argument, " that he 
did not fully apprehend it ; " on the contrary, we are 
forced to turn the tables again, and say it is Mr. C., 
and not Mr. W., that fails to apprehend the argument. 
We adopt Mr. W.'s definition of the a priori argument, 
though Mr. C. assumes, as usual, that the definition which 
he gives us is agreed upon, and adopted by all. We be- 
lieve with Sir W. Hamilton, and Watson knew, and Mr. C. 
should have known, that, " Previously to Kant the terms 
a pi'iori and a postei'iori were, in a sense which descended 
from Aristotle, properly and usually employed — the former 
to denote a reasoning from cause to effect — the latter a 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 83 

reasoning from effect to cause. The term a priori came, 
however, in modern times, to be extended to any abstract 
reasoning from a given notion to the conditions which sucli 
a notion involved ; hence, for example, the title a p)'>'iori 
bestowed on the ontological and cosmological arguments 
for the existence of the Deity. The latter of these, in fact, 
starts from experience — from the observed contingency of 
the world, in order to construct the supposed notion on 
which it founds. Clarke's cosmolos^ical demonstration called 
a priori^ is, therefore, so far, properly an argument a 2)0S- 
teriori.'''' 

What Mr. Watson says on page 331, is precisely the 
same in substance as the above from Sir W. Hamilton. 
Regarding Dr. S. Clarke's a 2:)riori argument, he says the 
doctor was " one of the earliest and ablest advocates of 
this mode of demonstrating the existence of God." But, 
he adds, " He first proceeds a p)OSteriori to prove, fi'om the 
actual existence of dependent beings, the existence from 
eternity of ' one unchangeable and independent Being ! ' " 
And just so it is that Mr. Cocker reasons, after all that he 
says about the conclusiveness and importance of the d. 
priori argument, which he says is deduced from " a priori 
truths ; " of which he gives the following as a specimen : 
" Every event must have a cause." JSTow in this d priori 
truth, as he calls it, there is clearly nothing from which to 
deduce an argument, but the event or effect therein speci- 
fied ; and in attempting to prove the being of a God from 
that event or effect^ he is clearly arguing from effect to 
cause ; his argument, therefore, is clearly an d p)osteriori 
argument ! The fact is, in proving the being of a God 
there cannot be such a thing as an d priori argument, prop- 
erly so called; for W'herever you start you must start 
with the creature or the Creator ; if with the latter, you 



84 watson's theological institutes 

assume what is to be proved, and then attempt to prove 
your assumption from your assumption ! If with the 
former, you are evidently arguing from effect to cause, and 
your argument, consequently, is an a posteriori argument. 
The reader can now judge who it is that has failed to 
apprehend the ap^nori argument, Watson or his reviewer ! 
And as to his " a priori truth," we simply remind him, as 
Watson has already done, that although it is an obvious 
truth, axiomatic if you please, it is not so to infidels, at 
least not so to all infidels, for Hume denies that it can be 
proved to be a truth ; so that although ice admit it to be 
an evident truth, still it failed to afford to Hume an<^rgu- 
ment demonstrative of the being of a God. It follows, that 
the failure to apprehend the a priori argument is wholly 
on the part of Mr. C, for if we should even grant that his 
mode of constructing the a priori argument is the right 
mode, still it fails to answer the end for Avhich he employs 
it, and this is the fact previously asserted by Mr. Wat- 
son. 

Mr. Watson now takes up the a posteriori argument. 
On page 275 he says: "Nature, as one justly observes, 
proceeds from causes to effects ; but the most certain and 
successful investigations of man, proceed from effects to 
causes, and this is the character of what logicians have 
called the argument a posteriori?'' From page 281 we 
have this argument as conducted by Locke, Howe, and 
Paley. The last two named are quoted at great length, 
and concerning the whole he thus speaks : " The above 
arguments, as they u-resistibly confirm the Scripture doc- 
trine of the exisjtence of an intelligent nrst cause, expose 
the extreme folly and absurdity of Atheism." Of this 
argument, as conducted by these masters, he not only 
speaks in the highest terms, but says of the a posteriori 



AKD THE BIBLE DEFENDED. ~ 85 

argument itself, when properly co.nduc?ted, that it is " both 
copious and irresistible," page 274. And again, on page 
335, he says: "The proof of the being of a God reposes 
wholly then upon 'arguments a post&i'iori^ and it needs no 
other; though we shall see as we proceed that even these 
arguments, strong and irrefutable as they are when rightly 
applied, have been used to prove more as to some of the 
attributes of God, than can satisfactorily be drawn from 
them. Even with this safe and convincing process of rea- 
soning at our command, we shall find at every step of 
inquiry into the Divine nature, our entire dependence upon 
Divine .revelation, for our primary light. That must both 
originate our investigations, and conduct them to a satis- 
factory result." On page 281, vol. i, Mr. Watson says: 
" The existence of God, once communicated to us by his 
own revelation, direct or traditional, is capable of ample 
proof, and receives an irresistible corroborative evidence 
a posteriori.'''' Again, on page 274, he says: "It is there- 
fore to be concluded, that we owe the knowledge of the 
existence of God, and of his attributes, to revelation alone, 
but, being now discovered, the rational evidence of both is 
copious and irresistible." jN"ow, not only in defiance, but 
in direct contradiction of all this, Watson's reviewer says, 
on page 188 : " Some of Mr. Watson's admirers have con- 
cluded his doctrine to be, that when once the idea of God 
has been suggested by revelation the human reason can 

elaborate the demonstration of his existence A 

more exact and critical attention to the entire scope and 
structure of his argument must, however, result in the con- 
viction that this is a misapprehension." Again, on page 
198, he says: "It is solely because Watson degrades the 
reason — ^the faculty which apprehends eternal, necessary, 
uni-^'ersal truth — and undervalues and disregards its a 



86 Watson's theological institutes 

priori intuitions, that he .is unable to apprehend and feel 
the logical conclusiveness of the a posteriori demonstration 
of a God." Poor Watson ! He " degrades the reason, 
and undervalues and disregards its a jt??'^dr^ intuitions," and 
" he is unable to apprehend and feel the logical conclusive- 
ness of the a posteriori demonstration of a God." This is 
about as conclusive as it is modest ; and the following on 
page 185 is in keeping : " He affirms, with earnestness and 
empliasis, that we have no idea of God, of right and wrong, 
and of immortality, except as derived from loithout by hi- 
struction and verbal revelation / that, indeed, we have no 
faculty of knowing on any of these subjects, except by 
faith." The reviewer does not tell us where Mr. Watson 
affirms this, only he assures us that, " A careful perusal of 
the chapters ' On the Presumptive Evidences in Part I, the 
chapter On the Existence of God in Part H, and the first 
chapter of Part III, On the Moral Law,' will be decisive 
of this question in every intelligent mind ! " If the re- 
viewer considers this decisive he is welcome to do so ; we 
apprehend, however, that most people will wonder, as we 
do, why Mr. Watson is thus misrepresented, which we have 
shown to be the fact in our review of the chapters referred 
to. As to the a posteriori argument^ as given by Locke, 
Howe, and Paley, so far from disparaging it, Watson 
s]ieaks of it in the highest terms, as we have shown, and we 
do nojb hesitate to say that the argument, as thus quoted 
and endorsed by Watson, is the fullest and clearest exhibit 
of it that has yet been given, as far as our knowledge goes, 
and for anything Mr. C. has shown to the contrary. And 
we do verily believe that Mr. W. has given it credit for all 
the merit it j)ossesses ; nor do we hesitate to say that Wat- 
son's reviewer has left it unimproved. 

As Mr. Cocker mentions space^ on page 203, as a source 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 87 

from which we may derive a knowledge of God, we will 
give Mr. Watson's views of arguments derived from this 
source also ; and thus close our examination of the chapter 
" On the Existence of God," to which we were referred by 
the reviewer. His remarks on this topic are found at the 
close of the chapter, on page 336, and run thus : " Equally 
unsatisfactorily, and therefore quite as little calculated to 
serve the cause of truth, is the argument from space ^ 
which is represented by N^ewton, Clarke, and others, as an 
infiniU onode of an infinite substance^ and that substance 

God Berkeley, Law, and others have however 

shown the fallacy of considering space either as a substance, 
or a mode, and have brought these speculations under 
the dominion of common sense, and rescued them from 
metaphysical delusion. They have rightly observed, that 
space is a mere negation, and that to suppose it to have 
existence, because it has some properties, for instance, of 
j^enetrability, or the capacity of receiving body, is the same 
thing as to affirm that darkness must be something because 
it has the capacity of receiving light, and silence something 
because it has the capacity of receiving sound, and absence 
something because it has the property of being supplied by 
presence)^ After exposing these and similar metaphysical 
sophisms, at some length, and showing that nothing may, 
in this way,, be exalted into something, he closes with 
these remarks : " The whole of this controversy has left us 
only to lament the waste of labor which has been employed 
in erecting around the impregnable ramparts of the great 
arguments on which the cause rests with so much safety, 
the useless incumbrances of mud and straw." The fact is, 
any one who is acquainted with what philosophers, ancient 
and modern, have said of space, knows, that, to undertake 
to prove from it the being of a God, is to undertake to 



88 watson's theological institutes 

prove the unhnown from the unknown ! Or, if it is as- 
sumed that God is already known, then such arguments 
profess to increase our knowledge of the known from the 
unknown ! To show how little we know about space we 
will here give a few of the singular definitions of it, which 
great men have left on record : Space is vacuum / it is the 
mere form of the sensibility / Space and time are in them' 
selves non-existing ^ Space is nothing huf the order of 
things co-existing / Space is not pure nothing^ for it has 
the capacity of receiving ^ Space is infinite and eternal j 
Space and time are really something / Space is hut a rela- 
tive to hody^ and to hody only / Space is an affection or 
property of the Deity / Space is an infinite quality of cm 
infinite substance ! 

]N'ow, in view of the above definitions, we really cannot 
represent Watson as degrading the human reason because 
he will not admit the utility of arguments drawn from such 
a source to prove the being of a God. On the contrary, 
we really think with him that they are at best " useless 
incumbrances of mud and straw ! " Thus have we care- 
fully examined and passed through the chapter in which 
Watson's reviewer professes to have found so much error, 
and have utterly failed to find the error specified. On the 
contrary, we admire and love its weighty and truly scrip- 
tural teachings more and more. 

But we are assured that we shall find the error " in the 
first chapter of Part III, * On the Moral Law. ' " To . a 
" discriminating mind," it is affirmed that " a careful pe- 
rusal " of this chapter " will be decisive of this question." 
That it will be " decisive of the question " is quite certain, 
for that is the last chapter appealed to ; hence, if we do 
not find the error there, as we are sure we will not, we 
have nowhere else to go to find it, and must, therefore, 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 89 

conclude that it is not to be found in "Watson's Insti- 
tutes." 

We are glad that we have been referred to this chap- 
ter, for several reasons ; one is, it so happens that the part 
more especially objected to is that which we more especially 
admire, because it contains, we believe, one of the happiest 
and most successful efforts to expose one of the most per- 
nicious and subtle errors. For this reason, and also that 
we may do both Watson and his reviewer justice, we must 
be allowed to quote that part of the chapter to which the 
reviewer so strongly objects, and in reference to which we 
differ so very widely. We sincerely regret, however, that 
we have still to complain of misrepresentation, and such 
misrepresentation, as we cannot even attempt to account for. 



90 WATSOn's TnEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



CHAPTER III. 

On page 186 of the review, Mr. C. brings the following 
sweeping charge against our author : 

" It is, therefore, but natural that he [Mr. Watson] 
should enter his solemn protest against the attempt to con- 
struct a science of Natural Theology or of Moral Phi- 
losophy, as a design which is not only 'visionary ' and * im- 
possible,' but of ' mischievous tendency,' and they who are 
engaged in it are accessory to the infidel crusade against 
the word of God." 

Here Mr. Watson is represented as "entering his sol- 
emn protest against the attempt to construct a science of 
Natural Theology or of Moral Philosoj^hy." Nay more, 
he is represented as asserting that the thing is " visionary, 
impossible, and of mischievous tendency." And in his 
introduction, on the first pa^e, the reviewer conveys the 
idea that Mr. Watson and other theologians condemn 
philosophy altogether. " Many theologians," he says, 
" have condemned philosophy, shutting it, as they supposed, 
out of the region of theology, and cautioning their hearers 
to ' beware that no man beguile them through philosophy.' " 
Doubtless it was, on reading these statements in the Quar- 
terly, that the good doctor of the Repository was moved to 
fly with so much haste and zeal to the rescue of philosophy 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 91 

out of the hands of these mistaken theologians who were 
about to shut it out of the region of theology, and abandon 
it forever. In the June number of the Repository, in con- 
nection with his notice of the article under consideration, 
the doctor thus speaks : " The true way to escape being 
spoiled through philosophy is not to let all philosophy 
alone, but to ground ourselves uj)on the true. ^N'ever yet 
have men succeeded in erecting a wall high enough to se- 
cure a total separation between the domains of philosophy 
and' theology." This, deep concern for the safety of phi- 
losophy brings to our mind what Bishop Morris tells about 
a certain city official who, in his great zeal for the peace of 
his city, on a certain occasion demanded the cause of the 
tumult, when an honest Dutchman replied, " It is only one 
bird that did get out of him cage." But in the present 
instance there is not even that much cause for alarm, for all 
this talk about Mr. Watson's deadly opposition to philoso- 
phy is simply untrue ! If the editor of the Repository 
had, examined the Institutes as well as the Quarterly, he 
would have seen that the attempt " to secure a total sepa- 
ration between the domains of philosophy and theology " 
is one of those evils to which Mr. Watson objects, and 
which he exposes in that very chapter to which Mr. Cocker 
refers us for proof of the above charges. To prevent such 
mistakes in the future, and to show how Mr. Watson has 
been misrepresented, we will now hear him speak for him- 
self. 

After speaking of the "perfection and glory" of the 
moral law, as given in the Old, and more fully developed in 
the IsTew Testament, he says, on page 472 : 

" It has, however, fared with morals as with doctrines, 
that they have been often and by a strange perversity 
studied without any reference to the authority of the 



92 watson's theological institutes 

Scriptures. As we have had systems of ISTatueal Rel'igion 
drawn out of the materials furnished by the Scriptures, and 
then placed to the sole account of human reason, so we 
have also various systems of morals drawn, as far as the 
authors thought fit, from the same source, and put forth 
under the title of Mokal Philosophy, implying too often, 
or at least sanctioning, the inference that the unassisted 
powers of man are equally adequate to the discovery of 
doctrine and duty [this, as we have seen, is the teaching of 
the article under review] ; or, at least, that Christianity 
but perfects what uninspired men are able not only to com- 
mence, but to carry onward to a considerable approach to 
j)erfection. This observation may be made as to both, that 
whatever is found correct in doctrine and pure in morals 
in ancient writers or systems, may be traced to indirect 
revelation, and that, so far as mere reason has applied itself 
to discovery in either, it has generally gone astray. The 
modern systems of natural religion and ethics are superior 
to the ancient, not because the reason of their framers is 
superior, but because they have had the advantage of a 
light from Christianity, which they have not been candid 
enough ganerally to acknowledge. For those who have 
written on such subjects with a view to lower the value of 
the Holy Scriptures, the remarks in the first part of this 
work must suflice ; but of that class of moral philosophers 
who hold the authority of the sacred bo^oks, and yet sedu- 
lously omit all reference to them, it may be inquired what 
they propose by disjoining morals from Christianity, and 
considering them as a separate science ? Authority they 
cannot gain, for no obligation to duty can be so high as the 
command of God ; nor can that authority be applied in so 
direct a manner as by a revelation of his will ; and, as for 
the perfection of their system, since they discover no duties 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 93 

not already enjoined in the Scriptures, or grounded upon 
some general principles they contain, they can find no 
apology, from the additions they make to our moral 
knowledge, to put Christianity, on all such subjects, wholly 
out of sight." 

The reader is requested to notice the connection of the 
words " mischievous tendency " in what follows, and com- 
pare with the quotation which we have given above from 
page 186 of the Review; and also with the quotation which 
w^e have given from Dr. Clarke of the Repository, and then 
tell us what ground there is for the charges of the one, and 
the fears of the other ; in other words, say whether Wat- 
son is the enemy of philosophy that he is represented to be, 
or whether he is its true and intelligent defender; say 
whether he is for separating philosophy and theology, as 
has been assumed, or whether, with Dr. Clarke, he is opposed 
to the separation, and a defender of the union of philosophy 
and theology. That the latter is the fact, " must, we think, 
be evident to every discriminating mind," after reading the 
quotations here given. Thus we turn the tables again, by 
not only clearing Watson of the charge of separating philos- 
ophy and theology, but by showing that it is his* opponents 
who do this very thing. And, as Mr. Watson complains, 
" they have not been candid enough generally to acknow-. 
ledge" the source from which they obtained the moral 
teachings which they thus separate from theology ; for al- 
though they are entirely indebted to "the sacred books" 
for all that is valuable in their moral teachings, they " sedu- 
lously omit all reference to them." We will now hear our 
author continue his defence. 

" All attempts to teach morals, independent of Chris- 
tianity, even by those who receive it as a Divine revelation, 
must, notwithstanding the great names which have sane- 



94 watson's theological institutes 

tioned the practice, be considered as of mischievous tend- 
ency, although the design may have been laudable, and the 
labor, in some subordinate respects, not without utility." 

His reasons for objecting to " all attempts to teach 
morals" m the ways here specified^ now follow. These 
reasons are so weighty, and so well expressed, we must be 
permitted to give them in the author's own words ; for, let* 
it be distinctly noticed — Watson's opponents must fairly 
oneet and invalidate these reasons^ or adopt the positiori in 
support of tohich they are advanced. And this they will 
find to be very different work from making and fighting a 
man of straw ; which is really all they have yet done. He 
objects to such attempts, then : 

" 1. Because they silently convey the impression that 
human reason, without assistance, is sufficient to discover 
the full duty of man toward God and toward his fellow 
creatures. [That the teaching of the article under review 
conveys this impression, we have already seen. See Review, 
pages 183, 184, 205, and 206.] 

" 2. Because they imply a deficiency in the moral code 
of our religion, which does not exist ; the fact being that, 
although these systems borrow much from Christianity, 
they do not take in the whole of its moral principles, and, 
therefore, so far as they are accepted as substitutes, dis- 
place what is perfect for what is imperfect. 

'•* 3. Because they turn the attention from what is fact, 
the revealed Law of God, with its appropriate sanctions, 
and place the obligation to obedience either on fitness, 
beauty, general interest, or the natural authority of truth, 
which are all matters of opinion ; or, if they ultimately refer 
to the will of God, yet they infer that will through various 
reasonings and speculations, which in themselves are still 
matters of opinion, and as to which men will feel themselves 
to be in some degree free. 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 95 

" 4. The duties they enjoin are either merely outward 
m the act, and so they disconnect them from internal prin- 
ciples and habits, without which they are not acceptable to 
God, and but the shadow^s of real virtue, however benefi- 
cial they may be to men ; or else they assume that human 
nature is able to engraft those principles and habits upon 
itself, and to practise them without abatement and interrup- 
tion ; auction which is contradicted by those very Scriptures 
they hold to be of Divine authority. 

" 5. Their separation of the doctrines of religion from 
its morals, leads to an entirely different process of promot- 
ing morality among men to that which the infinite wisdom 
and goodness of God have established in the Gospel. They 
lay down the rule of conduct, and recommend it from its 
excellence per se, or its influence upon individuals and upon 
society, or perhaps because it is manifested to be the will 
of the Supreme Being indicated from the constitution of 
human nature and the relations of men. But Christianity 
rigidly connects its doctrines with its morals. Its doctrine 
of man's moral weakness is made use of to lead him to dis- 
trust his own' sufficiency. Its doctrine of regeneration by 
the influence of the Holy Spirit, impHes the entire destruc- 
tion of the love of evil, and the direction of the whole af- 
fection of the soul to universal virtue. Its doctrine of 
prayer opens to man a fellowship with God, invigorating to 
every virtue. The example of Christ, the imitation of 
which is made obligatory upon us, is in itself a moral system 
in action, and in principle ; and the revelation of a future 
judgment brings the whole weight of the control of future 
rewards and punishments to bear upon the motives and 
actions of men, and is the source of the fear of offending 
God, which is the constant guard of virtue, when human 
motives would in a multitude of cases avail nothing. 



96 Watson's theological institutes 

" It may indeed be asked whether the teaching of morals 
must then in all cases be kept in connection with religion ? 
and whether the philosophy of virtues and vices, with the 
lower motives by which they are urged upon men, may not 
be usefully investigated ? We answer, that if the end pro- 
posed by this is not altogether speculative, but something 
practical ; if the case of an immoral world is taken up by 
moralists with reference to its cure, or even to its emenda- 
tion in any effectual degree, the whole is then resolved into 
this simple question — whether a weaker instrument shall 
be preferred to that which is powerful and effective ? Cer- 
tain it is that the great end of Christianity, so far as its 
influence upon society goes, is to morahze mankind ; but its 
infinitely wise Author has established and authorized but 
ONE process for the correction of the practical evils of the 
world, and that is the teaching and enforcement of the 
WHOLE TEUTH as it stauds in his own revelations ; and to 
this only has he promised his special blessing. A distinct 
class of ethical teachers imitating heathen philosophers in 
the principles and modes of moral tuition, is, in a Christian 
country, a violent anomaly ; and implies an absurd return 
to the twilight of knowledge after the sun itself has arisen 
upon the world. 

" Within proper guards, and in strict connection with 
the whole Christian system [so far is Mr. W. from building 
a high wall between theology and philosophy], what is 
called moral philosophy is not, however, to be undervalued ; 
and from many of the writers above alluded to much useful 
instruction may be collected, which, though of but little 
efficacy in itself, may be invigorated by uniting it with the 
vital and energetic doctrines of religion, and may thus be- 
come directive to the conduct of the serious Christian. 
Understanding then by moral philosophy, not that pride of 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 97 

science which borrows the discoveries of the Scriptures, 
and then exhibits itself as their rival, or affects to supply 
their deficiencies ; but as a modest scrutiny into the reasons 
on which the moral precepts of revelation may be grounded, 
and a wise and honest application of its moral principles to 
particular cases, it is a branch of science which may be use- 
fully cultivated in connection with Christianity." 

The above is all that this chapter contains that is strictly 
relevant to the points at issue, unless it be the closing para- 
graph, in which our author sums up thus : 

" To the revealed will of God we may now turn for in- 
formation on the interesting subject of morals, and we shall 
find that the ethics of Christianity have a glory and a per- 
fection which philosophy has never heightened, and which 
its only true office is to display, and keep before the atten- 
tion of mankind." 

We have now before us a verbatim exhibit of all that 
this chapter contains strictly relevant to the subject in 
hand. And any one who will be at the trouble of reading 
these quotations will see that Watson speaks highly of 
" what is called moral philosophy," and which he defines 
to be " a modest scrutiny into the reasons on which the 
moral precepts of revelation may be grounded." "This," 
he says, " is a branch of science which may be usefully cul- 
tivated in connection with Christianity, and may thus be- 
come directive to the conduct of the serious Christian." 
"From many of the writers above alluded to much useful 
information may be collected," Therefore, " what is called 
moral philosophy is not to be undervalued." To this end, 
however, it must be kept " in strict connection with the 
whole Christian system ; " therefore, to " all attempts to 
teach morals independent of Christianity," he decidedly 
objects, and his reasons are given above. As we only aim 
5 



98 watson's theological institutes 

at a defence of Watson and the truth, we leave Jt to others 
to divine why it is, in face of the above, that Watson is 
represented as being the unqualified enemy of philosophy, 
and as attempting to separate and build a wall between 
philosophy and theology! That precisely the reverse is 
true, in each particular, is as evident as the strength of the 
English language can make it ! Why his true position, and 
his weighty and masterly arguments in suj^port thereof, 
should be left utterly unnoticed, we also leave to others to 
divine. We must say, however, that to us this is truly 
marvellous, and its marvellousness is increased by the fact 
that this is done by ministers of high standing in the M. E. 
Church ; not because we expect them to be wiser or better 
than other ministers ; but because we expect them to be 
better acquainted with the Theological Institutes of Rich- 
ard Watson, and should unite with him in saying " that 
the ethics of Christianity have a glory and perfection which 
philosophy hS-s never heightened, and which its only true 
ofiice is to display, and to keep before the attention of man- 
kind." 

Mr. Watson raises no objection to philosophers or phi- 
losophy properly so called ; but to " that pride of science 
which borrows the discoveries of the Scriptures, and then 
exhibits itself as their rival, or affects to supply their deficien- 
cies." Mr. Watson takes the ground, as every sound theo- 
logian must do, that the doctrines and morals of Christian- 
ity are both perfect and inseparable ; and, accordingly, ob- 
jects, as God himself does, to all attempts to add to, take 
from, or separate them. He objects to the dishonest and 
pernicious j)ractice of stealing Scripture truth, and giving 
reason credit for the discovery thereof. With such philos- 
ophers and philosophy Mr. Watson has no sympathy, be- 
cause he is a sound philosopher, and a lover of sound philos- 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 99 

ophy, as his writings do most clearly show. And we are 
fully convinced that we would have better theologians and 
better philosophers if Watson's writings were more care- 
fully and more generally, studied ; and, as a consequence, 
we would have less of " that pride of science " above speci- 
fied, and v/hich sound theologians and philosophers hate 
as the very bane of both philosophy and theology, and 
which abounds in the present age as much as in any pre- 
vious age — perhaps I should say more, for it always grows 
out of, and accompanies the superficial. ^ 

We have long been convinced that the error of separat- 
ing the morals of Christianity from their doctrines^ and 
divesting them of their proper authority and motives^ is 
very co7nmon^ and very pernicious, and that it demands 
from theologians far more attention than it receives. It 
originated with those who were very far from being the 
friends of either the Church or the word of God; but, as- 
suming the garb and name of philosophy, it obtained 
countenance and support from many who were the friends 
of both ; and to the latter it is indebted for most of the 
success which it has had in the Christian world. We be- 
lieve the sacred cause of Temperance has suffered more 
from this error than from any other thing — perhaps we 
might say, more than from all other things put together. 
This branch of Christian morals has of late been separated 
more or less from the Christian doctrines whence it nat- 
urally springs ; it has been divested of the motives and au- 
thority with which Christianity invested it ; and it has been 
taken out of the hands of the Church, or people of God, 
and put into the hands of those who, in many instances, 
made no pretensions to the Christian character, and were 
very far from being friendly to the Church and cause of 
God. In such hands, and divested of all that which gave 



100 watson's theological institutes 

it force and vitality, the cause of Temperance has languish- 
ed and died, or been made a mere tool to promote other 
and even pernicious ends ! 

We have now examined all those parts of the Institutes 
to which we have been referred, and have discovered that 
the charges brought against Mr. Watson are without 
foundation. Instead of error, we have found the sublime 
doctrines of Christianity developed and enforced with the 
abilities of a master ; and much of the teachings said to be 
erroneous, we have not only shown to be entirely Scrip- 
tural, but such as is specially needed at the present time : 
we have also shown that Mr. Watson is strangely misquoted 
and misrepresented. In a word, we " have found no fault 
in this man, touching those things whereof ye accuse him." 

But Mr. Watson's logic is quite as objectionable, it 
would seem, as his metaphysics. On pages 191, 192, 193, 
and 194, the reviewer records some of his objections to 
Mr. Watson's reasoning, and gives us some specimens of 
his own, which shall now have a brief notice. 

"The question whether the Scriptures are a revelation 
from God is referred solely to the arbitration of a faculty 
which is pronounced to be ' weak, uncertain, and erring,' 
' which may be the reverse of the Divine reason,' and in 
whose demonstrations of the existence of God I am not 
permitted to repose any confidence. 'Ntw if reason is to- 
tally unreliable in t/iis case, it must be in that / if it mislead 
me in the one instance, I cannot trust it in the other ; if it 
is wholly incompetent to produce certitude when the ex- 
istence of God is under consideration, it must also when the 
truth of the Bible is under consideration." (Pages 191 and 
192.) This is a small specimen of much more that possesses 
as little, and even less merit, but with which we will not 
trouble the reader, as this contains the point at issue, and 
will, consequently, answer our purpose. 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 101 

That reason, human reason^ without the supernatural 
assistance of which we have already spoken at some 
length, is " a weak, uncertain, and erring faculty," espe- 
cially in reference to those subjects specified by Mr. Wat- 
son, is certainly asserted by the latter, and we join with 
him in the assertion ; for to join issue with him here, is to 
take the ground that unassisted reason is strong^ unerring^ 
and certain^ in its investigations and decisions on the 
aforesaid subjects ^ a ground which we did not suppose 
any man in his senses would take, and which we know is 
utterly untenable, being at variance with the facts of uni- 
versal experience. 

We join issue with the reviewer, however, when he as- 
serts, "if it [reason] is wholly incompetent to produce cer- 
titude when the existence of God is under consideration, it 
must also when the truth of the Bible is under considera- 
tion." By "the truth of the Bible" we suppose the re- 
viewer means its being what it professes to be, the word of 
God. That reason is competent to produce certitude as to 
this, but entirely incompetent to originate the idea of the 
God of the Bible, is Watson's position ; that it is incompe- 
tent to the former, if it be incompetent to the latter, is the 
reviewer's assertion : but as he simply asserts, we simply 
deny till he attempts the proof; in the mean time we will 
give Watson's position in his own words. 

The chapter in which this subject is discussed com- 
mences on page 95, vol. i, and is entitled, " The use and 
limitation of reason." After several remarks, which it is 
not necessary to quote, our author proceeds thus, on page 
95 : 

" We are not, in the first instance, to examine the doc- 
trine, in order to determine from our own opinion of its 
excellence, whether it be of God (for to this, if we need a 



102 watson's theological institutes 

revelatioD, we are incompetent), but we are to inquire into 
the credentials of tlic messengers, in quest of sufficient 
proof that God hath spoken to mankind by them. Should 
a slight consideration ol the doctrine, either by its apparent 
excellence, or the contrary, attract us strongly to this ex- 
amination, it is well; but whatever prejudices, for or against 
the doctrine, a report, or a hasty opinion of its nature and 
tendency may insj^ire, our final judgment can only safely 
rest upon the proof which may be afforded of its Divine 
authority. If that be satisfactory the case is determined, 
whether the doctrine be pleasing or displeasing to us. If 
sufficient evidence be not afforded, we are at liberty to 
receive or reject the whole, or any part of it, as it may ap- 
pear to us to be worthy of our regard ; for it then stands 
on the same ground as any other merely human opinion." 

On pages 102, 103, our author speaks of the use and 
limitation of reason thus :* " The use of reason, therefore, 
in matters of revelation, is to investigate the evidences on 
which it is founded, and fairly and impartially to interj^ret 
it according to the ordinary rules of interpretation in other 
cases. Its limit is the authority of God. When he has 
explicitly laid down a doctrine, that doctrine is to be hum- 
bly received, whatever degree of rational evidence may be 
afforded of its truth, or withheld ; and no torturing or per- 
verting criticisms can be innocently resorted to, to bring a 
doctrine into a better accordance with our favorite views 
and systems, any more than to make a precept bend to the 
love and practice of our vicious indulgences. A larger 
scope than this cannot certainly be assigned to human 
reason in matters of revelation when it is elevated to the 
office oi judge — a judge of the evidences on which a pro- 
fessed revelation rests, and a judge of its. meaning after the 
application of the established rules of interpretation in other 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 103 

cases. But if reason be considered as a learner^ it may 
have a much wider range in those fields of intelligence 
which a genuine revelation from God will open to our view. 

Thus it is that reason, instead of being fettered, 

as some pretend, by being regulated, is enlightened by 
revelation, and enabled from the first principles and by^thc 
grand landmarks which it furnishes, to pursue its inquiries 
into many subjects to an extent which enriches and en- 
nobles the human intellect, and administers continual food 
to the strength, of religious principle. This, however, is 
not the case with all subjects. Many, as we have already 
seen, are from their very nature wholly incapable of inves- 
tigation. At the first step we launch into darkness, and 
find in religion as well as in natural philosophy, beyond cer- 
tain limits, insurmountable barriers, which bid defiance to 
human penetration." 

Thus it is that Mr. Watson specifies the use and limita- 
tion of reason ; specifies what it can^ and what it can not 
do ■; what is its legitimate work, and what is not ; wherein it 
is weak, erring, and uncertain, and wherein it is a sure guide ; 
wherein it is reliable, and wherein it is not. " Its limit is the 
authority of God ; " its use " in matters of revelation," is not 
to decide what a revelation should he, "for to this, if ^e need 
a revelation, we are incompetent ; " but " to investigate 
the evidences on which it is founded, and fairly and impar- 
tially to interpret it according to the ordinary rules of 
interpretation in other cases." But the reviewer says, " if 
reason is wholly incompetent to produce certitude w^hen 
the existence of God is under consideration," it is equally 
incompetent to do this ; if it cannot decide what a revela- 
tion from God should be, it cannot examine the seals there- 
of. In a word, if it cannot do the greater it cannot do the 
"less ! We now leave the reader to decide whether Wat- 



104 watson's theological institutes 

son's logic or that of his reviewer is most at fault ! We 
also leave it to. the impartial reader to say whether Watson 
has degraded the human reason by specifying its limit and 
USE as above. Thus we again turn the tables, by showing 
that it is the reviewer's logic that is at fault, not Mr. Wat- 
son'§ ! The appropriate work of reason, in this connection, 
is thus stated by Leslie in his " Short and Easy Method 
with a Deist : " "I suppose, then, that the truth of the 
Christian doctrines will be sufficiently evinced if the mat- 
ters of fact recorded of Christ in the gospels are proved to 
be true ; for his miracles, if true, established the truth of 
what he delivered. The same may be said with regard to 
Moses. If he led the children of Israel through the Ked Sea, 
and did such other wonderful things as are recorded of him 
in the book of Exodus, it must necessarily follow that he was 
sent by God ; these being the strongest evidences we can 
require, and which every Deist will confess he w^ould admit 
if he himself had witnessed their performance. So that the 
stress of this cause will depend upon the proof of these 
matters of fact." The work here assigned to reason is 
simply to ascertain whether the things here specified are 
matters of fact, and this being done, " the truth of the 
Christian doctrines," says Mr. Leslie, " will be sufficiently 
evinced." It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to conceive of 
any two works more different than the above, and that of 
originating the idea of an Infinite Intelligence; yet Mr. 
Cocker says, if reason cannot do the latter it cannot do 
the former ! Mr. Leslie, however, like Mr. Watson, shows 
that reason is quite competent to the one task, though 
utterly incompetent to the other ; and he also shows that 
to establish the above facts, with which God seals his own 
truth, is to establish " the truth of the Christian doctrines," 
and the first of these is the being of an Infinite Intelligence ! 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 105 

On page 193 the reviewer further objects to Mr. Wat- 
son's logic, thus : " In order, therefore, to prove the truth 
of the Holy Scriptures, he has first to assume what he can- 
not po'ove^ namely, the existence of God, and then having, 
as he supposes, proved the truth of revelation, he proves 
from revelation the existence of God. In other words, he 
says : Grant me that God exists, and I will prove the Bible 
to be true, and then from the Bible I will prove the being 
of a God. If this be not an example of the petitio prin- 
cipii — a mere begging of the question — then we do not 
understand his argument. He is all the while arguing in a 
vicious circle." 

That the reviewer does not understand Mr. Watson's 
argument is sufficiently obvious, and to admit this is the 
very best apology we can make for him, for he has never 
onc^ given Watson's argument to his readers, though he 
has often professed to do so. In the quotations given 
above he says Watson " has first to assume what he cannot 
prove, namely, the existence of God." And he represents 
him as saying, " Grant me that God exists, and I will prove 
the Bible to be true." l!^o, sir ; Watson says no such thing, 
»nor anything like it ; neither does he "assume what cannot 
be proved. He says : " It is, therefore, to be concluded 
that we owe the knowledge of the existence of God, and 
of his attributes, to revelation alone ; but, being now dis- 
covered, the rational evidence of both is copious and irre- 
sistible ; so much so that Atheism has never been able to 
make much progress among mankind where this revelation 
has been preserved." And, as corroborative of this senti- 
ment, he quotes the following words of Ellis : " Tell men 
there is a God, and their mind embraces it as a necessary 
truth ; unfold his attributes, and they wall see the expla- 
nation of them in his works." The amount is this : the 
6* 



106 watson's theological institutes 

knowledge of an Infinite Intelligence cannot be derived 
from what is created, however extensive, for that would be 

to DERIVE THE INFINITE FROM THE FINITE ; but God him- 

s«il liavino' communicated to man a knowled<2je of his own 
beino' and attributes, that knowleds^e is corroborated and 
illustrated by all the works of God. In a word, Revelation 
ORIGINATES and Creation illustrates the great idea. In- 
stead, then, of assuming " what cannot be proved," Watson 
simj^ly assumes a nalied fact, namely, that the idea of an 
Infinite Intelligence is already in man's possession ; and he 
asserts that " Moses and all the inspired writers " assume 
the same fact, and assume it because it was a fact admitted, 
believed, and Joioion. That some " did not like to retain 
God in their knowledge," and, consequently, " had not the 
knowledge, of God," is not only not denied, but asserted, 
both by Watson and the inspired writers ; but this does 
not affect the fact here claimed; it only goes to estabUsh 
that other point claimed by Watson, viz., that the knowl- 
edge of God is not intuitive, universal, and inevitable. But 
while Watson, like the inspired writers, assumes the fact 
here specified, he does not assume, but attempts to prove, 
that the idea of an Infinite Intelligence was not orig-inated 
by man, but communicated to him directly from God him- 
self; and we beheve he is quite successful in his attempt. 
Here, then, is no " begging of the question," no " arguing 
in a vicious circle." Watson, we repeat, simply recognizes 
the undisputed fact, viz., that in his time, as well as in the 
time of Moses and Adam, the idea of an Infinite Intelli- 
gence was in man's possession, whether he believed it or 
not ; and by a masterly and, we think, conclusive argument, 
he professes to have shown that man had this knowledge 
originally and directly from God himself. The difference 
between Watson and his opponents on this last point is 



AlTD THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 107 

simply this : Watson takes the ground, with Paul, that 
" faith Cometh by hearing the word of God ; " while his 
opponents take the ground that faith cometh by seeing the 
loorks of God. "VYe have already seen that man could not 
in this way originate a knowledge of the being and attri- 
butes of the God of the Bible ; and we now say that this is 
equally true of all the essential doctrines of Christianity. 
It is quite evident, for instance, that we cannot by contem- 
plating the works of creation originate a knowledge of the 
doctrine of the trinity, nor that of the atonement ; there is 
nothing in the earth, the sun, the moon, or the stars, by 
seeing which we can learn how " God can be just and the 
justifier of the ungodly." The same is true of the doc- 
trine of the Spirit's agency in man's salvation, of the res- 
urrection of the human body, of a general judgment, and 
of prayer offered to God in the name of another. ISTo part 
of this faith, we affirm, cometh by seeing the works of God ; 
it all comes by heaking the Woed op God, either commu- 
nicated directly by God himself, or by a messenger who 
shall give satisfactory evidence that God hath sent him ; 
and to investigate this evidence is the legitimate work of 
reason. It is thus that Mr. Watson has proved the truth 
of revelation ; and, in connection with his own, he gives the 
famous argument of Mr. Leslie, already referred to. To 
examine the seals of revelation, and thus prove it to be 
from God, man is quite competent if he will avail himself 
of the help within his reach ; but to originate a knowledge 
of the doctrines specified above, he is entirely incompe- 
tent ; for this knowledge he is indebted to a direct revela- 
tion from God. 

But the reviewer takes the ground that the Bible is 
simply of no use, that it admits of no proof, and has no 
authority, unless you csmfrst, and indeipendent of it^ prove 



108 "watson's theological rc^sTixrTEs 

the being and attributes of God. I say the being and 
attributes of God, for the question is not whether there be 
something eternal (that is not disputed), but whether there 
be an Eternal Intelligence, clothed with infinite attributes ; 
if this cannot be proved, independent of the Bible, then the 
Bible itself is insuscej)tible of proof, and is, consequently, 
of no more authority than the Koran or the Zendavesta. 

As this is a point upon which the reviewer lays much 
stress, and upon which he grounds, if I mistake not, his 
weightiest objections to Watson's views, we will quote his 
own words to an extent that will prevent the possibility of 
mistake. " 'How am I to certify myself of the being of a 
God?' That he does exist must be determined before I 
can consider the evidence of a revelation professing to bo 
from him." (P. ISY.) "Finding that the a priori and a 
posteriori argument are both alike insufficient to furnish 
a complete and independent demonstration of the being of 
a God, and that human reason is unable, without a revela- 
tion from God in human language, to certify itself that God 
exists, he * concludes that we owe the knowledge of the 
existence of God to revelation alone.' " .... " If we 
owe our knowledge of the existence of God to revelation 
alone^ then it is impossible to prove, logically^ the existence 
of God.'''' Mark the words, " a com^^lete and independent 
demonstration of the being of a God." That reason can 
do this is what Mr. C. affirms, and that if this cannot bo 
done independent of revelation^ " then it is impossible to 
prove, logically, the existence of a God." As the words 
" in human language," in the above quotation, are calculated 
to lead astray, and as Mr. C. seems to assume that the 
word revelation, as used by Mr. Watson, means something 
written in a book, w^e will just here give Mr. Watson's own 
definition of a revelation, which he adopts from Dr. Dodd- 
ridge. 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 109 

" A Divine revelation has been well defined to be ' a 
discovery of some proposition to the mind, which came not 
in by the usual exercise of its faculties, but by some 
miraculous Divine interposition and attestation, either 
mediate or immediate.' " It will be seen that this is very 
different from what Mr. Cocker gives as Mr. Watson's idea 
of a revelation. It will be necessary to kee^D in view this 
definition of a revelation, as it shows the sense in which 
Mr. W. uses the word. 

We will now proceed with our quotations from the 
review for the purpose of showing Mr. Cocker's position. 
" If we owe the knowledge of the existence of God to 
revelation alone, then we cannot, by human reason, prove 

that the Bible is a revelation from God." " We 

must either postulate or prove the existence of God before 
we can attempt the first argument to prove the truth of 
the Bible." (P. 192.) We might give much more of the 
same kind, but the quotations here given are quite suffi- 
cient. Till you demonstrate the being of a God independ- 
ent of a Divine revelation, your best attempt to prove that 
" the Bible is a revelation from God," is " a mere begging 
of the question," it is " arguing in a vicious circle." 

Dr. Dempster takes the same ground, as may be seen in 
his series of articles which are now being published in the 
" North- Western Christian Advocate." The following quo- 
tation from article ISTo. 3, in the issue of the 24th December, 
1862, will suffice to show the doctor's position; indeed, the 
whole series is evidently designed to perfect what is lacking 
in Mr. Cocker's effort to place the argument beyond the 
possibility of successful contradiction. His first article, in 
particular, is, to a considerable extent, a mere rehearsal of 
Mr. Cocker's words, so that we need not give more than a 
single quotation in this connection. "The conclusion is, 



110 watson's theological institutes 

then, Icrgically forced upon us, if there be no prior proof of 
God's existence out of the Bible, there can be no proof that 
the Bible is of God.'' ^' So that we must do the work inde- 
pendent of the Bible, and then, after the work is done, the 
Bible may come along and offer its superfluous and un- 
called-for service ! 

^N'ow with all deference to all doctors, and all others, 
w^e take the ground that the Bible is complete, not only in 
its teaching, but also in evidence. So that the issue is 
fairly joined in this particular also ! And notwithstanding 
the evident confidence with Avhich Watson's opponents rest 
in the supposed security of their position, as stated above, 
we cannot resist the conviction that we can expose its utter 
weakness in five minutes ! Now, why may I not prove that 
the inspired writers lived, as is recorded of them, and that 
they said and did certain things ; without first proving 
the being of a God from the facts of creation, and the 
intuitions of pure reason ? I say, why may I not do the 

* The following quotations from Fowler the phrenologist are, we think, 
quite La harmony with the above : 

" Modern Christianity makes too much of her Bible, by ascribing to it 
more than it claims, or was ever designed to accomplish. Christianity, or 
the doctrines of the Bible, are only the supplement of religion, while 
natural theology, or the existence of God, or the fundamental principles 
of religion to be presented in the essay, are the foundation. The human 
mind requires somewhat more of proof than it finds in the Bible. The 
Bible gives us its ipse dixit simply ; but the human mind requires evidence 
— requires to understand the ichrj and the wherefore^ and the philosophy 
of that which it receives. That philosophy the Bible does not give — does 
not even prete^id to give. It requires belief on the greund of a * thus 
saith the Lord,' and there leaves it." 

According to Fowler, the Bible contains mei-e ipse dixit ; according to 
Dempster, " words uttered by we know not who." We, however, take the 
ground that the Bible is complete in itself, both in teaching and evidence. 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. Ill 

former, without first doing the latter ? Why, sirs, you 
.may as well tell me that I cannot prove that Aristotle, 
Socrates, Plato, and Cicero lived, as is recorded of them, 
and that they said and did certain things, Avithout first 
proving the being of a God from the facts of creation ! I 
say you might as well tell me the latter, as tell me the 
former. jSTay, you might as well tell me that I cannot 
prove a case of murder, without first proving the being of 
a God, as tell me that I cannot prove that Elijah and Jesus 
Christ restored life, till I first jDrove the being of a God ! 
Why may I not prove that life was restored, just as well as 
that it was taken away ? And all this without first proving 
the being of a God. I maintain that the simple facts, that 
the sacred writers lived, as is recorded of them, and that 
they wrought certain miracles, and delivered certain proph- 
ecies, are as susceptible of proof as any other facts / and 
that there is no conceivable necessity for my first proving 
the being of a God, before proving such facts. And! take 
the ground, that when these facts are proved j i. e., that the 
sacred writers lived and acted as is recorded of them, the 
claims of the Bible are established beyond the possibility of 
successful contradiction : for the miracles and prophecies 
thus proved to he facts, are God's seals afSxed to what 
they '^ wrote and spoke," and affixed for the declared pur- 
pose of proving that they " wrote and spoke as they were 
moved by the Holy Ghost." We cannot so much as con- 
ceive of any possible way of evading this conclusion, save 
that adopted by the Sadducees, for on all hands the 
miracles w^ere admitted to be above the power of man, 
and, therefore, inust be ascribed to God or the devil ; and 
as the Sadducees would not do the former, they ,were 
forced to do the latter, and Jesus Christ pronounced their 
malignant utterances blasphemy, and declared it to be 
"'^Dardonable ! 



112 watson's theological institutes 

Although the points here claimed are exceeding plain, 
yet believing, as we do, that it will give increased vividness 
and force to our argument, we will give a quotation or two 
from the good old Book which we claim to be complete in 
itself, not only as to teaching, but also as to evidence. 

The following passages are, we think, to the point : 
" And Moses answered, and said. But, behold, they will not 
believe me, nor hearken unto my voice : for they will say, 
The Lord hath not appeared unto thee. And the Loed 
said unto him, What is that in thine hand ? And he said, 
A rod. And he said. Cast it on the ground. And he cast 
it on the ground, and it became a serpent ; and Moses fled 
from before it. And the Lord said unto Moses, Put forth 
thine hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his 
hand and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand: that 
they may believe that the Lord God of their fathers, the 
God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, 
hath appeared unto thee. And the Lord said furthermore 
unto him. Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put 
his hand into his bosom : and when he took it out, behold, 
his hand was leprous as snow. And he said, Put thine 
hand into thy.bosom again. And he put his hand into liis 
bosom again, and plucked it out of his bosom ; and, behold, 
it was turned again as his other flesh. And it shall come 
to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the 
voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of 
the latter sign. And it shall come to pass, if they will not 
believe also these two signs, neither hearken unto thy 
voice, that thou shalt take of the water of the river, and 
pour it upon the dry land : and the water which thou 
takest out of the river shall become blood upon the dry 
land. And Moses said unto the Lord, O my Lord, I am 
not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 113 

unto thy servant : but I am slow of speech, and of a slow 
tongue. And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made 
man's mouth ? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the 
seeing, or the blind ? have not I, the Lord ? Now there- 
fore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what 
thou shalt say." " And thou shalt take this rod in thine 
hand, wherewith thou shalt do signs." " Thus shalt thou 
say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto 
thee. " And Moses and Aaron went, and gathered to- 
gether all the elders of the children of Israel. And Aaron 
spake all the words which the Lord had spoken unto Moses, 
and did the signs in the sight of the people. And the 
people believed : and when they heard that the Lord had 
visited the children of Israel, and that he had looked upon 
their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worship- 
ped." These quotations are taken from the third and 
fourth chapters of the book of Exodus. We will simply 
call attention to the following particulars: First, Moses 
saw, " And, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush 
was not consumed." He also witnessed the other phe- 
nomena, some of which we have given in the above quota- 
tions. Moreover, he heard the voice of the Lord God, and 
he felt his power in his body, and in his soul, and all to 
this end, that he might know that the message which he 
carried, and the authority under which he acted, were 
from the Lord God of his fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and 
Jacob. And the God who did all these things, for the 
ends here specified, also said to Moses, " Certainly I wiU 
be with thee ; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I 
have sent thee ; when thou hast brought forth the people 
out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain." 
And, finally, the Lord God said unto him, "Thou shalt 
take this rod in thine hand, wherewith thou shalt do signs." 



114 watson's theological institutes 

Such are the means which God employed, and such the end 
for which he employed them. And the end was answered, 
for Moses never doubted for one moment that it was the 
Lord God of his fathers that sent liim ; and being invested 
with power to work miracles, to convince others that I AM 
had sent him, he went forth. 

Meantime, "The Lord said to Aaron, Go into the wil- 
derness to meet Moses. And he went, and met him in the 
mount of God, and kissed him. And Moses told Aaron all 
the words of the Lord who had sent him, and all the signs 
which he had commanded him." Thus Aaron had all the 
evidence necessary to satisfy his mind on the same points. 
And being thus satisfied, and qualified, they, " Moses and 
Aaron, went and gathered together all the elders of the 
children of Israel. And Aaron spake all the words which 
the LoED had spoken unto Moses, and did the signs in the 
sight of the people. And the people believed : and when 
they heard that the Loed had visited the children of Israel, 
and that he had looked upon their affliction, then they 
bowed their heads and Avorshipped." Here, again, the 
means employed are quite successful ; the people are as 
satisfied as are Moses and Aaron, that the message and the 
authority are from the Lord God of their fathers. And no 
marvel, for the facts were as indisputable as their very 
existence, and the facts established the claims. Thus, as 
might be expected, Infinite Wisdom employs the best means 
to the best end, and, of course, where such means fail, 
nothing can possibly succeed. " If they believe not Moses 
and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though 
one rose from the dead." It will be seen, of course, that 
the i^arties more immediately interested in the miracles 
here specified, were such as already had the idea^ and to 
some extent, the knowledge, of the true God, and the 



AND THE BIBLE DEFEJSTDED. 115 

miracles were designed to convince them that it was this 
God, the God of their fathers, that spake to and by Moses. 
The knowledge that the God of Abraham was an Infinite 
Spirit, clothed with omnipotence, omniscience, and omni- 
presence, was not communicated by the miracles ; miracles 
could net do this, any more than the heavenly bodies ; but 
miracles could, and did, convince them that Moses had his 
commisdon from this true God, the God of their fathers, a 
knowledge of whose being and attributes they were already 
in possession of. Hence the Egyptians, though they saw 
the miracles, had no such lofty conceptions of the God that 
wrought them : on the contrary, while they had no doubt 
that it was by the power of Israel's God that the miracles 
were wrought, they still supposed that their own gods were 
equal, if not superior, to the God of Israel ; it was to have 
this matter fairly tested that Pharaoh called for the magi- 
cians, that they might work by the .power of the gods of 
Egypt, while Moses wrought by the power of the God of 
Israel. But let us.,suppose that the Egyptians are as fully 
instructed, by revelation, as the Israelites are, as to the 
character of the true God, and let miracles be wrought to 
convince them that Moses comes to them with instructions 
from that God, then the miracles will be calculated to pro- 
duce the same efiect upon their minds that they did upon 
the minds of the IsraeliteSo I say by revelation / for it was 
by revelation that Moses and the Israelites had the knowl- 
edge of God here specified. Moses never pretended that 
his sublime concej)tions of God were inferred from the 
miracles which he had witnessed, any more than that they 
were inferred from the heavenly bodies ; nor does the 
sacred text intimate for a moment that this is the end for 
which they were wrought, as we have already seen. Moses 
derived his sublime conceptions of God, partly from his 



116 Watson's theological institutes 

pious and divinely instructed ancestors, and partly by di- 
rect revelation from God himself. 

Of course we are not now speaking of a written revela- 
tion, for although man was never without a revelation from 
God^ as yet he had no written revelation / nor does it ap- 
pear that the knowledge of letters was even known till God 
with his own " finger " wrote the ten commandments upon 
two tables of stone. " God wrote now," says Dr. Adam 
Clarke, " on tables of stone what he had originally written 
on the heart of man, and in mercy he placed .that before 
his eyes which by sin had been obliterated from his soul ; 
and by this he shows us what, by the Spirit of Christ, must 
be rewritten in the mind." By the way. Dr. Dempster, in 
his article of the lYth December, speaks of "the heathen 
which were without revelation." I suppose he means 
without a written revelation ; though if he does, his conse- 
quences will not follow ; and if he means absolutely without 
any revelation save that which is given in the works of 
creation, we object to the premise from which he draws his 
conclusions ; for we do not believe that man was ever left 
absolutely without a revelation^ understanding the term as 
Watson and Doddridge define it ; for not only did God speak 
to Adam and others, and " to the fathers by the prophets," 
but we are assured that Jesus Christ is " the true Light, 
which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." 

We now turn to the loritten revelation, and will endea- 
vor to show that the Bible imparts to us both the idea 
and the knowledge of God, and that it contains in itself 
satisfactory evidence of the truthfulness of that idea and 
that knowledge of God which it imparts. 

I make a distinction between these three particulars, 
namely, the idea of the heing of a God, the knowledge of 
his character, and the evidence^ or proof of both. 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 117 

The idea^ the Jcnowledge^ and the evidence are thus ob- 
tained. I take up the Bible, and the first sentence in that 
book strikes my eye, and reads thus : " God in the beginning 
created the heavens and the earth." Here I have two 
ideas. The first is, that there is a being whose name is 
Elohim, or God ; and the second is, that this God created 
the heavens and the earth. Now as soon as I read this 
sentence, I have these two ideas; I say I have them, 
whether I believe them or not ; or whether I like them, or 
dislike them ; the fact is the same, I have them ; and it is 
absolutely out of my power to make it otherwise. Now 
let it be supposed that I was, up to this time, like one of 
those philosophers whom Watson mentions, and whom we 
shall notice in due time, who liever had the idea oi creation^ 
or of a creating God; and lived and died without the idea, 
because they had not the Bible, or a revelation of these 
two ideas contained in this first sentence of the Bible : I 
say suppose this, and it will follow, not only that I have 
these two ideas as soon as I read this sentence, but that I 
am indebted to the Bible for them. Or if my opponents 
should deny that there ever was such a man, still it must 
be admitted that if there was, it would be possible for him 
to obtain these two ideas in this way / and this is all that 
my argument requires, namely, that I have, or may have 
these ideas from the Bible alone, independent of any pre- 
vious help from any other source, as to these two ideas. 

Well, now I have these ideas ; and they are of such an 
extraordinary character that my mind acts as it never did 
before. I look up to the heavenly bodies, and I say, " Cer- 
tainly, this is an extraordinary conception, that there was a 
time when these were created^ before which they had no 
being, not even as to their substance ! And what a Being 
that must be who createdi them all, yea 'the heavens and 



118 watson's theological institutes 

the earth ! ' " I am now induced to read on, and am sur- 
prised beyond measure as I read the sublime utterances, 
which are only exceeded by the still more sublime concep- 
tions contained in the short history of the creation and 
formation of the heavens and the earth. '' Let there be 
light, and there was light ! " " Certainly," I exclaim again, 
"these are conceptions utterly unknown, even in the schools 
of our philosophers ; and whether they are true or not, they 
are at least interesting, and are worthy of the most care- 
ful consideration." I proceed with increased interest, and 
mark with pleasing wonder the sublimity and simj^licity 
which alike characterize this brief but altogether wonderful 
history. My wonder, together with the most pleasing 
emotions, are still increased as I read, "And God said. Let 
the earth bring forth gr?ss, the herb yielding seed, and the 
fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in it- 
self, upon the earth : and it was so." Again, I pause, with 
still increased wonder and delight, as I read, "And God 
made two great lights ; the greater light to rule the day, 
and the lesser light to rule the night : he made the stars 
also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to 
give light upon the earth." I proceed with this wonderful 
narrative till, lo ! my wonder and delight are increased be- 
yond utterance as I read, " And God said, Let us make 
man in our image, after our likeness : and let them have 
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the 
air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over 
every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So 
God created man in his own image, in the image of God 
created he him ; male and female created he them. And 
God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, 
and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it ; and 
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 119 

of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon 
the earth." Finally, the narrative closes in these words, as 
my wonder and delight reach their climax ; " And God saw 
every thing that he made : and, behold, it was very good." 
" TMis the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the 
host of them." And all in six days ! And, what is also 
wonderful, the whole history would only cover about one 
page of a pamphlet ! Could any man who never saw the Bi- 
ble, write such a history as this? Have any of the schools 
of learning, whether ancient or modern, produced anything 
like this ? Could any man by his natural powers originate 
these conceptions, and write this history? Our answer, 
our unhesitating answer, to these questions is, ISTo. 

But, having these ideas, I become increasingly anxious 
to know more about this God who " created the heavens 
and the earth and all the host of them," and who upholds 
and moves all and every part thereof ; and, what is still 
more interesting, is the Father of my Spirit. I say I am 
increasingly anxious to know more about this God ; yea, I 
already begin to feel that " this is life eternal, to know thee 
the only true God." Hence, to this end, I continue to read 
the wonderful book to which I am indebted for the won- 
derful conceptions by which I am thus moved and charm- 
ed. And as I read, the character of this great First Cause 
is developed more and more. He is Eternal ; he is beifig 
itself. "I AM THAT I AM." ''From everlasting to 
everlasting.'^'' '* I am God." He is Spirit, not body ; 
mind, not matter. He is " the Father of spirits.^'' " The 
God of the spirits of all flesh.'''' We are not allowed to 
conceive of him as having any form. He is a pure Spirit 
unconnected icith body. Hence he is declared to be " the 
invisible God, whom no man hath see?i nor can see.''"' " The 
King eternal, immortal, invisible.'''' '•^Remember ye saw 



120 "Watson's theological institutes 

no similitude.'''' " Qod is a Spirit.'''' The idea of a plurality 
of gods has no place in this book. " Hear, O Israel, the 
Lord thy God is one Lord." " The Lord he is God ; there 
is none else beside him." " There is none other Go^ but 
one." Yet this One God is manifested, or held forth to us 
-in this book, as Father., Son^ and Holy S»xjirit ; each possess- 
ing the same attributes, and claiming and receiving the 
same worship. Hence we have a Trinity in Unity ; three 
PERSONS, One God. I am taught, too, that God is every- 
where present. " Do not I fill heaven and earth ? saith the 
Lord." " Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens can- 
not contain thee." " Li him we live, and move, and have 
our being," His power, hke his presence, knows no bounds. 
" Is there any thing too hard for God ? " " He spake and 
it was done, he commanded and it stood fast." '' He up- 
holdeth all things by the word of his power." As this 
book teaches me that God is omnipresent, it also teaches 
me that he is omniscient, and perfect in knowledge. He 
sees and knows all persons and things. " Known unto him 
are all his works." " Hell and destruction are without a 
covering before him, how much more the hearts of the 
children of men!" "Lord, thou hast searched me and 
known me ; thou knowest my down-sitting and my up-ris- 
ing." " The darkness hideth not from thee, but the night 
shineth as the day." " Great is the Lord, his understand- 
ing is infinite." This wonderful book teaches me that this 
wonderful Being is immutable. This is indicated by the 
sublime title I AM. It is also asserted in the most striking 
language: "I am the Lord, I change not." He is "the 
Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither 
shadow of turning." " The same yesterday, to-day, and 
forever." His wisdom, like his other perfections, is declar- 
ed to be perfect. As to his works, it is said : " In wisdom 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 121 

hast thou made th^m all." And he is emphatically de- 
clared to be " the only wise God." " He is mighty in 
strength and wisdom." "To the intent that now unto 
the principalities and powers in heavenly ^/aces might be 
known by the church, the manifold wisdom of God." On 
the subject of God's goodness^ the writers of this book em- 
ploy language the most elevated, glowing, and rapturous. 
His goodness they represent as goodness of nature^ as be- 
ing one of his essential perfections. " Thou art good and 
doest good." "The Loed is good to all, and his tender 
mercies are over all his works." We are assured that " He 
delights in mercy," that his is " loving kindness and tender 
mercy." His very names import the goodness of his nature, 
and convey the most overwhelming ideas of that goodness ; 
such as " The gracious one," " The all-sufficient and all- 
bountiful pourer forth of all good." So critics interpret 
some of the wonderful names of this wonderful Being, who 
is as good as he is great. Nor are the writers of this book 
satisfied with asserting the essential goodness of the Divine 
nature, but, becoming rapturous in view thereof, they ex- 
claim ; " O that men would praise the Loed for his 
goodness and for his wonderful works to the children of 
men ! " And becoming still more rapturous, they exclaim in 
a burst of holy joy : " Let every thing that hath breath 
praise the Loed." 

Everywhere in this book I meet with the most sublime 
and elevated conceptions of the holiness of this God, and 
of his law. He is the " Holy, Holy, Holy, Loed God Al- 
mighty." And his " Law is holy, and the commandment 
holy, and just, and good." He is " The Holy One of Is- 
raeV Here, too, the sacred writers become rapturous 
and exclaim : " Who is like unto thee, O Loed, among 
the mighty ones? Who is like thee, glorious in holi- 
6 



122 WATSON S THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 

ness, fearful in praises, doing wonders ? " And again, 
" Who shall not fear thee, O Loed, and glorify thy name, 
for thou only art Holy." The book that teaches these 
sublime lessons as to the holiness of the Divine nature also 
teaches, as a matter of course, that the justice and truth 
which flow from this holiness are, Hke their source, infinite^ 
"A God o.f truth, and without iniquity, just and right art 
thou." " A just God and a Saviour, there is none beside 
me." " The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous 
altogether." "Thy word is truth." "Thy word is true 
from the beginning." " These things saith he that is holy, 
he that is true." " Just and true are thy ways, thou King 
of saints." Being thus just and true, we are assured he 
" will lender to every man according to his works." " The 
Lord our God is the God of gods, and Lord of lords, a 
great God, a mighty and terrible, which regardeth not 
persons, neither taketh rewards. He accepteth not the 
person of princes, nor regardeth the rich more than the 
poor, for they are all the work of his hands." " God is no 
respecter of persons." " Shall not iRe Judge of all the 
earth do right ? " Seeing this God is represented in this 
book as making promises to and entering into covenant 
with man, 'hi^ faithfulness is frequently asserted with an ab- 
soluteness similar to that which certifies to us his goodness, 
justice, and truth." " He is not a man that he should lie, 
nor the son of man that he should repent." " God is faith- 
ful." " Faithful is he that calleth you, who also wiU do it." 
" But the Lord is faithful, who shaU stablish you and keep 
you from evil." " Thy faithfulness reacheth unto the 
clouds." " Thy faithfulness shalt thou establish in the 
heavens." "Thy faithfulness is unto all generations." 
" Great is thy faithfulness." 

Such are some of the wonderful conceptions which this 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 123 

book gives ns of that God whose book ifc is. But it gives 
us to understand that even these are but feeble conceptions 
of his infinite glory and majesty. While Paul gazes with 
adoring wonder and rapturous delight upon this Almighty 
Being ^s manifested in his own word, he can only exclaim : 
" O the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowl- 
edge of God ! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his 
ways past finding out ! " " For of him, and through him, 
and to him are all things : to whom be glory for ever. 
Amen." Mr. Watson, too, after contemplating the teach- 
ings of this wonderful book with reference to the being and 
attributes of God, gives expression to his sentiments and 
feelings in the following very appropriate and beautiful 
lano'uao'e : " God is unsearchable. All we see or hear of 
him is faint and shadowy manifestation. Beyond the high- 
est glory, there is yet unpierced and unapproached light, 
a track of intellectual and moral splendor untravelled by 
the thoughts of the contemplating and adoring spirits who 
are nearest to his throne. The manifestation of this na- 
ture of God, never ftilly to be revealed, because infinite, 
is represented as constituting the reward and felicity of 
heaven. This is ' to see God.' This is ' to be forever with 
the Lord.' This is to behold his glory as in a glass, with 
unveiled face, and to be changed into his image, from glory 
to glory, in boundless progression and infinite approxima- 
tion. Yet, after all, it will be as true, after countless ages 
spent in heaven itself, as in the present state, that none by 
'searching can find out God,' that is, 'to perfection.' He 
will even then be ' a God that hideth himself; ' and widely 
as the illumination may extend, clouds and darkness will 
still be round about him." With these thoughts in the 
mind, and still hngering as in the presence of this " God of 
glory," I must be permitted to give still further expression 



124 wat^on's theological institutes 

to my present sentiments and feelings in the following 
words from the 29th chapter of First Chronicles : " Blessed 
be thou, Lord God of Israel our Father, for ever and ever. 
Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the 
glory, and the victory, and the majesty ; for all that is in 
the heaven and in the earth is thine ; thine is the kingdom, 
O Lord, and thou art exalted as head above all. Both 
riches and honor come of thee, and thou reignest over all ; 
and in thine hand is power and might ; and in thine hand it 
is to make great, and to give strength unto all." Equally 
appropriate are the following words from the seventy-second 
psalm : " Blessed be the Loed God, the God of Israel, who 
only do^pth wondrous things. And blessed be his glorious 
name for ever : and let the whole earth be filled with his 
glory. Amen, and Amen." 

Thus it is that this book imparts to us the idea of God 
arid of creation, and thus it is that it gives perfect instruc- 
tion with regard to God's character, the perfection of his 
government, and the boundlessness of his reign. So per- 
fect that, as Watson observes, not a single additional con- 
ception, worthy of God, has ever been originated by man. 
And its teachings as to man are equally ample and satisfac- 
tory. It gives perfect information as to my origin^ nature^ 
and destiny. As to my origin^ it tells me that this spirit^ 
this ego^ I myself, came directly from God, and that he 
formed my body " out of the dust of the earth." It gives 
ample information as to the derangement and weakness of 
man's spiritual faculties, the badness of his moral nature, 
the troubles and sorrows with which he is loaded, the evils, 
both natural and moral, with which he is surrounded, and 
also as to the infirmities and death of the body. Sin^ 
rebellion against God^ is the cause of all. It points me to 
a glorious and complete remedy for all this evil in the 



AND THE BIBL5 DEFENDED. 125 

infinite goodness, wisdom, and power of God, working 
through the atonement and intercession of Jesus Christ his 
Son and my Saviour, and not mine only, but also " the 
Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe." It 
tells me that the Holy Spirit, in consideration of this atone- 
ment, will come in answer to my believing prayer, and not 
only teach, enlighten, and regenerate my soul, but will also 
'' bear witness with my spirit " to the fact of my sonship by 
regeneration and adoption ; that he will apply the blood of 
Jesus so as to cleanse me from all sin ; that he will guide 
me into all truth, help my infirmities, and even be my com- 
forter. As to my destiny, it tells me that is eternal union 
with God himself in ineffable glory upon his own eternal 
throne. Nor is my dead and consumed body forgotten : 
this book tells me that God will raise it from the grave and 
make it like unto Christ's glorious body. And all this, I 
am told, is secured by believing in Jesus Christ, and being 
faithful unto death. In other words, by following the plain 
teachings of this book, the sum of which is, Aear, repetit^ 
believe^ obey. This book tells me, finally, that there will be 
a general resurrection, and a general judgment, at which 
all intelligences will have their final destinies fixed, eter- 
nally fixed, in the bliss of heaven or the misery of hell. 
And all this, I am told, will be done by the unerring decis* 
ion of that God whose book this is, and in which I have 
all the information specified above. * 

Now, all this information man has or may have from 
the Bible alone, without previously proving the being 
of a God from the material world. This is a fact. And 
it will be remembered that Watson admits man's ability to 
collect evidence of the being of a God when once he has 
the idea; but here is not only the idea^ but complete 
instruction,. so complete that nothing can be added to it, 



126 watson's theological institutes 

and all this from the Bible alone, without any help from 
any other quarter. As to the proof that there is just such 
a God as is here described, and that the o4;her teachings 
specified are true, that is the next point that we proposed 
to take up. We take the ground that Ihe Bible contains 
evidence or proof of the truth of its own teachings. The 
objectors to Watson take the negative of this question. 
That the point or points in dispute may be before the 
reader, we will give the words of our opponents just here. 

"-If we owe our, knowledge of the existence of God to 
revelation alone, then it is impossible to prove, logically, 
the existence of Gody (Review, p. 191.) Mark what it is 
that is declared to be impossible. " If we owe the knowl- 
•edge of the existence of God to revelation alone, then we 
cannot by human reason prove that the Bible is a revela- 
tion from God." (Review, p. 192.) Mark again what it is 
that cannot be done. 

" The conclusion is, then, logically forced upon us, if 
there be no prior proof of God's existence out of the Sihle, 
there can be no proof that the Bible is of God." (Dr. 
Dempster, " K W. C. Advocate " of 24th December, 1862.) 
Mark again what it is that cannot be proved. 

liTow, whether there is proof " out of the Bible " or 
not, we hope to show that there is sufficient proof in the 
Bible. And, if we do, it will follow, as a matter of course, 
that the above conclusions are not true, and the systems 
built upon them must of necessity fall to the ground. 

We take the ground that miracles are God's seals upon 
his own truth, and that they afford the evidence or proof 
claimed. That is, every revelation or truth that has this 
seal affixed to it, is thereby proved to be from that God 
whose seal it is. Before proceeding Tsith our argument 
from the Bible, we will give the following quotations, 
w^hich we think will be quite in place just here. 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 127 

" Every real miracle is a work of God." (Richard Wat- 
son.) 

" And thus we see that the only question concerning 
the truth of Christianity is, whether it be a real revela- 
tion." (Butler.) • 

Speaking of Paul's heavenly visions, Grotius says : " If 
we believe his miracles, what reason is there why we should 
not believe him in his heavenly visions, and in his receiving 
his instructions from Christ ? " And again, " God 'cannot 
more effectually recommend the authority of any doctrine 
delivered by man than by working miracles. But some 
say that these wonders were done by the help of devils ; 
but this calumny has been already confuted from hence, 
that as soon as the doctrine of Christ was made known, all 
the power of the devils was broken." He quotes the 
Fathers in proof of this, and we might quote modern mis- 
sionaries in proof of the same thing. The following quo- 
tation from Ambrose, as given by Grotius, is also worthy a 
place here : " Whom should I rather believe concerning Grod 
than God himself." When God gives' a revelation of him- 
self^ and seals that revelation with a miracle, that is God 
speaking concerning himself; and yet there are three wit- 
nesses, viz., the messenger^ the word^ and the miracle / the 
messenger, as we have already shown, has evidence that he 
has his message from God; the word declares the character 
and will of God ; and the miracle, which none but God can 
work, seals the message and avouches the whole to be/rom 
God. 



128 watson's theological institutes 



CHAPTEE lY. 

Being now in possession of perfect instruction as to the 
being, attributes, government, and claims of Grod, and, in 
short, as to every other particular, all we want now is the 
proof, and for this we return to Moses and his " wonders 
in the land of Ham." Here he is before us, with " the rod 
of God in his hand." Himself, Aaron, and the people of 
Israel in general, particularly the elders, have been con- 
vinced already that he has his commission and authority 
from the true God, the God of their fathers ; and now the 
Egyptians, before whom this same God is set forth clothed 
with infinite attributes, are to have satisfactory evidence of 
the same truths by the same or still more wonderful mir- 
acles. And remember, so far as the facts are certified to us, 
the miracles aflTord us the same evidence that they aflTorded 
the Israelites and the Egyptians. 

The history of the ten plagues may be read in the 
seventh and five following chapters of the book of Exodus, 
and a very striking epitome of this history may be found 
in the 105th psalm, so that we need only make a few 
remarks for the purpose of fixing attention upon the more 
striking features of these wonderful occurrences. 

Notice then, first, that Moses and Aaron act simply as 
they are commanded by that God from whom they have 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 129 

their commission and authority ; second, that to that God 
they ascribe all the miracles ; third, they give previous 
notice of the wonderful event, stating the very time of its 
occurrence ; fourth, at the time specified they publicly put 
forth an act, and the result immediately follows ; fifth, the 
miracles are such as are felt and seen throughout the land 
of Egypt, except, sixth, that part occupied by the children 
of Israel ; that part was exempted from all the plagues. 
" In the land of Goshen, where the children of Israel were, 
was there no hail." " And Moses stretched forth his hand 
toward heaven, and there was thick darkness over all the 
land of Egypt three days ; they saw not one another, 
neither rose any from his place for three days, but all the 
children of Israel had light in their dwellings." Seventh, 
these plagues were of long continuance, so that all had 
time not only to feel, but to test their terrible reality. For 
instance, all the waters of Egypt being turned into blood, 
continued so for seven days, and the "thick darkness" 
continued three days. Eighth, these plagues not only 
came at the word of Moses and Aaron, which they uttered 
in the name of the Lord, " m the sight of Pharaoh, and in 
the sight of his servants," but they went away also at their 
word, and that instantaneously. Ninth, these miracles 
were such that none but the God of Israel could work 
them, and there was no power that could resist them, for, 
if God permitted the magicians to practise deception for a 
time, or work lying wonders by Satanic influence, it was 
only to expose them, and manifest his power still more. 
Tenth, the end for which these miracles were wrought is 
thus distinctly and ofteji stated : " Thus saith the Lord, In 
this shalt thou know that lam the Lord." "That thou 
mayest know that there is none like unto the Lord our 
God." " And I wiU sever in that day the land of Goshen, 

6* 



130 watson's theologic^x institutes 

in which my people dwell, that no swarms of flies shall "be 
there, to the end thou mayest know that I am the Loed 
in the midst of the earth." " Thus saith the Lord God of 
the Hebrews, Let my people- go, that they may serve me. 
For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine 
heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people, that 
thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the 
earth." " And in very deed for this cause have I raised 
thee up [margin : made thee stand], for to show in thee my 
power, and that my name may be declared throughout all 
the earth." 

So frequently, emphatically, and unmistakably, is the 
great end of all these miracles stated ; even to demonstrate 
the heing^ and will^ of that God whose eternity^ character^ 
and government are so forcibly asserted, and developed by 
Moses and the other inspired writers. ^N'or was this for 
the conviction of the Egyptians only, but that, saith the 
LoED, " My name may be declared throughout all the 
earth." I say the end was not only to demonstrate' the 
being of a God, but to demonstrate the being of that God, 
whom Moses declared to be eternal, and clothed with 
infinite perfections ; yea, and to demonstrate that there is 
no other god ; and also to establish the fact that all the 
teachings of Moses are the teachings of this very God. 
Now seeing an infinitely wise God employs these means 
for the accomplishment of thje end or ends here specified, 
^t follows that they are the .very best means that can be 
employed under the circumstances. It follows, too, that 
when Watson's opponents assert, as above, that the being 
of a God must first be proved " from the facts of creation 
and the intuitions of pure reason," and that till this be done 
" we cannot prove that the Bible is a revelation from God," 
they not only join issue with Watson, but with God him- 



Ain) THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 131 

self, who has adoj)ted this very method; and has adopted it 
as the very best, if not the only method, and that, too, 
without any attempt, before or after, to prove the "being 
of a God from the works of creation. If any one should 
attempt to evade this conclusion by saying that the Egyp- 
tians already knew God, as all men do, by intuition^ it is 
only necessary to say that this assumption is contradicted 
by facts, and by the history before us. It also represents 
God as undertaking to teach the Egyptians what they 
already knew, and as working miracles to produce a faith 
which they already possessed. But if, notwithstanding all 
facts and consequences, any one should still persist in 
saying that the Egyptians had already a knowledge of God 
by intuition^ it is only necessary to refer them to Pharaoh, 
who himself rejects their assumption, and corrects their 
mistake, by saying : " Who is the Loed, that I should obey 
his voice to let Israel go ? I know not the Loed, neither 
will I let Israel go." ISTow it was to convince Pharaoh and 
other atheists of the being of Israel's God, and of the truth 
of revelation, that God wrought miracles^ without first 
attempting a proof from the works of creation ; nor was it 
altogether in vain that he did so, as the following quota- 
tions do most clearly show : " He that feared the Loed 
among the servants of Pharaoh made his servants and his 
cattle flee into the houses. And he that regarded not the 
word of the Loed left his servants and his cattle in the 
field." Thus while the masses of the people "regarded not 
the word of the Loed," there were some who "feared 
the word of the Loed." They "feared the word of the 
Loed " by Moses, in view of the six preceding plagues, or 
miracles ; so completely have these miracles proved the 
being of a God and the truth of revelation. Nay, convic- 
tion is riveted even on the mind of Pharaoh by these 



132 watson's theological institutes 

miracles ; so that the following utterances are wrung from 
him : " And Pharaoh sent and called for Moses and Aaron, 
and said unto them, I have sinned this time : the Lord is 
righteous, and I and my people are wicked. Entreat the 
LoED (for it is enough) that there be no more thunderinga 
and hail; and I will let you go, and ye shall stay no 
longer." And again : " Then Pharaoh called for Mosea 
and Aaron in haste ; and said, I have sinned against the 
Lord your God, and against you. E'ow therefore forgive, 
I pray thee, my sin only this once, and entreat the Loid 
your God that he may take away from me this death only." 
But if, notwithstanding all this, it should still be assertod 
that revelation, though sealed by miracles, is of no use till 
the being of a God is first proved " from the facts of crea- 
tion and the intuitions of pure reason," and that before 
this is done it is even " impossible to prove, logically, the 
existence of a God," the authors of such assertions must not 
blame us for drawing from their own premises conclusions 
that are inevitable. And one of these conclusions is this : 
those who take this ground resist evidence which not only 
convinced Pharaoh and the Egyptians mentioned above, 
but even constrained the magicians themselves to exclaim : 
" This is the finger of God ! " This faith and this confeo- 
sion of fait*h were produced by the third plague, and that 
too without any " prior proof of God's existence." So that 
those who, in the face of all this, still persist in maintaining 
the position here opposed, prove that they are more un- 
believing even than Jannes and Jambres, who candidly 
acknowledged the evidence to be irresistible and declared 
their faith in Israel's God, and in his revelation by Moses, 
by giving up the contest and exclaiming : " This is the 
finger of God." They evidently believed with Watson that 
" every real miracle is a work of God." And with Grotiu3 



AIH) THE BIBLU DEFENDED. 133 

they seemed to say: "If we believe his miracles, what 
reason is there why we should not believe him in his heav- 
enly visions, and in his receiving his instriictionsV^ from 
the God whom he declares to be eternal in his being, and 
infinite in his attributes? They evidently conclude with 
Butler, too, " that the only (jnestion concerning the truth 
of Christianity is, whether it be a revelation." And that 
the truth delivered by Moses was a revelation from God, 
was just what it professed to be, was, according to their 
own showing, demonstrated by the stupendous miracles 
whicj^ they had witnessed, and which had been wrought, 
avowedly, to prove this very thing. We formerly showed 
that man could not possibly originate a knowledge of the 
God of the Bible, that he could not derive such knowledge 
from the works of creation ; and it is equally evident that 
the works of creation could not prove that the teachings of 
Moses were a revelation from the God of the Hebrews; 
but miracles proved this, even to the conviction of Pharaoh 
and his magicians. And what is true of the teachings of 
Moses, is true of the teachings of all the inspired writers. 
The teachings that are declared to be from the God of the 
Bible, and in proof thereof are sealed by the miracles that 
are recorded in the Bible, must be from that God, and can- 
not possibly be from any other. This conclusion seems to 
us inevitable. The miracles and the teachings of the Bible 
evidently come from the same source ; for none but the 
God of the Bible could work these miracles, and he cer- 
tainly would not, he could not, work them to prove that 
these teachings were his, if they were not his. It follows 
that to estabUsh the miracles of the Bible, is to establish 
the teachings of the Bible ; and he who knows the end 
from the beginning wrought these miracles for this very 
end, as we have shown above ; and they answer this end, as 



134: watson's theological institutes 

might be expected, for God never makes a mistake. Thus 
it is that the Bible contains in itself, and imparts to man, 
the idea of God, perfect teaching^ and demonstrative proof. 
And the process is so simple and easy, that you have only 
to prove the single fact that the miracles were wrought^ 
and you thereby prove that the teachings of which they 
are the seals^ are from the God of the Bible ; and the 
teachings thus proved to be from the God of the Bible, are, 
like their Almighty Source, perfect : so perfect that we 
are commanded on pain of eternal death neither to add to 
nor take from them. The following lines contain a su^alime 
and glorious truth : 

" What glory gilds the sacred page ! 
Majestic Hke the sun, 
It gives a light to every age ; 

It gives, BUT BORROWS NONE," 

The reader is now prepared to judge between these 
conclusions, and those with which we join issue ; the sum 
of which is contained in Dr. Dempster's grand proj^osition, 
which it may be well to repeat just here : 

"If there be no prior proof of God's existence out of 
the J^ible, there' can be no proof that the Bible is of God." 

Now, in opposition to this, we hold that the Bible is com- 
plete in itself, both as to teaching and evidence. We say 
with Grotius, if we believe its miracles, we must believe its 
teachings. And we say with Butler, " The only question 
concerning the truth of Christianity [or the Bible], is whe- 
ther it be a revelation ? " And we not only say that mir- 
acles prove this, but that they prove it as nothing else will. 
In proof of this, let us turn to Moses again. God sends 
him to teach his will, say to the Israelites ; now, how is he 
to convince the Israelites that he has this teaching from 



AKD THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 135 

God Almighty? Is he to appeal to the facts of creation? 
It would be perfect nonscDse ; there is no connection what- 
ever. Even if the being and attributes of the God of the 
Bible could be proved from the visible world, that would 
not prove that Moses had his teaching from that God, any- 
more than it would prove that Jannes and Jambres had 
their teaching from him. Would you have him appeal to 
the harmony of his teachings, the agreement of all the 
parts thereof? That would be little better, for multitudes 
declare that the Pentateuch is full of contradiction. Would 
you have him appeal to the moral purity of his teachings ? 
That, too, would be to little purpose, for multitudes declare 
that although much of his teaching is excellent, there is 
also much that is wicked in his teaching ; hence they say 
they will just take and reject as they see -fit ; so that they 
are left to their own opinion after all. Even prophecy will 
not substitute for miracle, for it aiFords no evidence save in 
its fulfilment, and that, being yet in the future, will not 
answer for the present. But when stupendous miracles 
are wrought, miracles that are seen and felt throughout the 
land of Egypt, then the most stupid Egyptian will both 
understand and fear ; while Pharaoh himself acknowledges 
his guilty and the magicians exclaim, " This is the finger of 
God." How is it possible, I say, to doubt that Moses speaks 
the worcl^ and acts by the authority, of God Almighty, 
when, to prove these very points, that God works the 
stupendous miracles specified above, and then leads some 
three millions of j)eople through a sea some twelve miles 
across ? I say, how is it possible to doubt in view of such 
evidence ? There is a road cut through the sea where the 
waters are some twenty-eight yards deep ! And these 
waters form a wall on either hand, perhaps some forty 
yards high, and immovable as a wall of brass ; while some 



136 WATSON S THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 

three millions of people, pursued by mighty armies of their 
enemies, urge on, in their escape from bondage and death, 
between these wonderful walls, and through depths hither- 
to unexplored, save by leviathan or other creatures whose 
home is in the mighty waters. There they go ! I say, in 
the depths of the sea, yet on " dry land ! " Methinks I 
hear the solid tread of some six millions of feet, as they mo- 
mently fall upon the highway which God has prepared for 
them away down in the depths of the Red Sea. There 
they go ! during the silent watches of the night, when all, 
save Israel, is wrapped in darkness : but the God that gave 
Israel light in Goshen, while the Egyptians were wrapped 
in thick darkness, now gives Israel light during midnight 
darkness, even in the depths of the sea ; whilst the same 
Egyptians are still in darkness, though only separated from 
Israel by a pillar of cloud. This cloud, however, gives 
light to Israel, while it only increases the midnight gloom 
with which Israel's enemies are shrouded. Let it be dis- 
tinctly noticed, that these miracles in the Red Sea, like 
those in Egypt, occur instantaneously when Moses simply 
lifts up his hand, which he does by the command of the 
LoKD. Here is the record: "And the Lokd said unto 
Moses * * * * lift up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand 
over the sea, and divide it : and the children of Israel shall 
go on dry ground through the midst of the sea." He did 
so, and the sea divided, and Israel passed through. " And 
the LoED said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand over 
the sea, that the waters may come again upon the Egyp- 
tians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen. And 
Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea 
returned to his strength when the morning appeared ; and 
the Egyptians fled against it; and the Loed overthrew 
[margin : shook off] the Egyptians in the midst of the sea. 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 137 

And the waters returned and covered the chariots, and the 
horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the 
sea after them : there remained not so much as one of 
them. But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in 
the midst of the sea ; and the waters were a wall unto them 
on their right hand, and on their left. Thus the Lord 
saved Israel that day out of the hands of the Egyptians : 
and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore. 
And Israel saw that great work which the Lord did upon 
the Egyptians : and the people feared the Loud, and be- 
lieved the LoED, and his servant Moses." Mark the results 
of these miracles: "The people feared the Lobd, and be- 
lieved the LoED, and his servant Moses." They not only 
believed in the being of an Intelligent First Cause, but they 
believed in that very God whose eternity and infinite per- 
fections are proclaimed by Moses in language so forcible 
and elevated, and in strains so sublime and rapturous. And 
the people, too, caught those sublime conceptions of God, 
and gave expression to them in the rapturous and glorious 
song which immediately follows the words quoted above. 
And they not only believed in this God, but they " believed 
in his servant Moses." That is, they received his teach- 
ing, and submitted to his authority, as coming from this 
God. And they did so because God affixed his seal to 
these teachings by working the miracles here recorded. 

But all such conclusions from such premises, according 
to Watson's reviewer, are " a mere begging of the ques- 
tion." Such persons are " all the while arguing in a vicious 
circle." " As yet the truth of revelation is under discus- 
sion, and is itself in abeyance ; " and must continue so till 
the being and attributes of God are first proved from " the 
facts of the universe and the intuitions of the human mind." 
It is even so, says Dr. Dempster ; " The conclusion is logi- 



138 watson's theological institutes 

cally forced upon us, if there be no prior proof of God's exist- 
ence oxfjt of the JBihle^ there can be no proof that the Bible 
is of God." Regardless of the above miracles, and of all 
the miracles and prophecies recorded in the Old and New 
Testaments, and by which God seals every word of revela- 
tion, I say, regardless of all this, Mr. Watson's reviewer 
exclaims, " How am I to certify myself that such a revela- 
tion has been given ? True, we have a book which pro- 
fesses to be a revelation from God — a book which says, 
' There is a God ! ' and which records numerous appearances 
of God to men in bygone days. But that assertion is not 
proof that such a Being does exist, any more than the asser- 
tion of the Koran or the Zendavesta, until I have rai:ionally 
demonstrated that the Bible is an authentic revelation, and 
that h,ere I have the veritable words of God." Thus, while 
all Israel are fully satisfied that Moses proclaims " the verit- 
able words of God," being convinced of this by the wonder- 
ful miracles recorded in Exodus, and are singing their 
triumphant song in consequence ; Watson's reviewer has 
no soDg to sing ! While the millions of Israel, whom the 
Lord brought up out of Egypt with a high hand and an 
outstretched arm, and through the sea, as on dry land ; I 
say, while these millions are singing their rapturous song 
in all the triumphs of faith in God, and in his revelation ; 
Watson's reviewer stands disconsolate and sad, exclaiming, 
" How am I to certify myself that such a revelation has 
been given ? " And no marvel, for, strange to say, he sees 
nothing in it but mere assertion ; and " that assertion," he 
says, ** is not proof that such a Being does exist, any more 
than the assertion of the Koran or the Zendavesta." Now 
we readily admit that mere assertion will prove nothing ; 
but pray, does the Bible contain no more than mere asser- 
tion? That any one who ever read the Bible should as- 



Al^D THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 139 

sume so, is little less marvellous than the miracles and 
prophecies which such an assumption ignores. Now sup- 
pose Watson's reviewer should be sent to Mr. Jefferson 
Davis, of the Southern Confederacy, as Moses was sent to 
Pharaoh ; suppose the call, the authority, the evidence, and 
every other particular were the same. And suppose he 
should go to the President of the Southern Confederacy, 
with the rod of God in his hand, and in the name of the 
LoED God, demand the release of all the slaves ; and on his 
refusing to grant that request, which he certainly would, 
sup230se Mr. C. should distinctly warn Mr. Davis of the con- 
sequences, as Moses did Pharaoh ; and let it be su|)posed 
that he should then speak and act, as is recorded of Moses 
and Aaron in the seventeenth and four following verses of 
the seventh chapter of Exodus ; and let us suppose that the 
Mississijjpi and all the waters in the Confederate States are 
turned into blood, and continue so for seven days ; and all 
this, it is supposed, takes place according to previous and 
public notice, given by Mr. C, and that too, immediately 
on his lifting up his hand in the open day, " in the sight 
of" Mr. Davis " and in the sight of his servants." N^ow let 
it be supposed, further, that after similar notice in each 
case, nine more plagues are poured out upon the Confed- 
erate States, just such as were poured out upon Egypt, and 
each plague follows the lifting up of Mr. C.'s hand, or on 
some similar signal being given by him, and on his raising 
his hand, or offering up a prayer, these plagues go as quick- 
ly as they came. "We will now suppose that after the first- 
born of man and beast, throughout the Confederate States, 
are slain, Mr. C. is permitted to depart with, say, three 
millions of slaves, men, women, and children, " and a mixed 
multitude with them; and flocks, and herds, even very 
much cattle." There Mr. C. goes at the head of this vast 



140 WATSOn's theological mSTITUTES 

multitude, as mixed as it is vast, but " not a dog '' is per- 
mitted to " move bis tongue against man or beast." " And 
the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud, to 
lead them the way ; and by night in a pillar of fire, to 
give them light : to go by day and night. He took not 
away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by 
night, from before the people." We will now suppose that 
Mr. C. and his three millions of slaves have arrived at the 
Chesapeake Bay, and that the President and all the armies 
of the Confederate States overtake them there, being deter- 
mined to bring them back or destroy them ; but, we will 
suppose Mr. C. Hfts his rod again, and points it across the 
bay, upon which the waters divide and stand as a wall 
some thirty to forty yards high on either hand, leaving a 
road sufiiciently wide for the millions that are to travel 
upon it. In the evening they commence their journey and 
in the morning they are in Maryland ; in the mean time the 
pillar of cloud has passed from the front to the rear, divid- 
ing the escaped slaves from the Southern armies who are 
still pursuing ; but as soon as Mr. C. and his people reach 
the other side and are safe in Maryland, he again points his 
rod over the bay, "and the sea returned to his strength 
when the morning appeared," and the Confederate armies 
" fled against it ; and the Lord overthrew the " Confederate 
armies " in the midst of the sea . . . there remained not so 
much as one of them." We will now suppose that Mr. C. 
composes such a hymn as is found in the 15 th chapter of 
Exodus, and he and all the people sing it, and after suitable 
devotions, wherein they give all the praise to the Lord 
God of their fathers, they pursue their journey till they 
come to the Blue Mountains, and there, from the highest 
of these mountains, as from Sinai, God speaks to the people, 
while the thunders peal, the lightnings flash, the moun- 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 141 

tains u'emble, and " burn with fire unto the midst of heaven, 
with iarkness, clouds, and thick darkness." " And when 
the 1 )ice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder 
and } Aider," Mr. C. spake, " and God answered him by a 
voico," in the hearing of all the people. He also gave him, 
we will suppose, a law for the people " written upon two 
tables of stone with the finger of God." You may suppose 
too, that Mr. C. journeyed with this people forty years ; 
they were all fed with manna from heaven, their shoes and 
clothing did not wax old, neither did their feet swell, dur- 
ing these forty years. Finally, in short, we will suppose 
that Mr. C. wrought all the miracles recorded in the Pen- 
tateuch, and at the age of an hundred and twenty years he 
took leave of the Africans as Moses did of the Israelites : 
" His eye was not dim nor his natural force abated." And 
God^took his spirit to heaven, and buried his body we 
know not where. Now let us suppose that the people 
whom God thus delivered by the hand of Mr. C, became a 
great nation, and a record of all these mu-acles is laid up in 
the archives of the nation ; and annual celebrations of these 
great events are kept by the whole nation to the present 
day. Let us, I say, suppose all this, and we must suppose 
a thousand times more to make out a parallel case, but let 
us suppose this much, and then let us suppose that Mr. C. 
has written a book in which all these wonders are recorded, 
and which contains teachings so perfect, and so original, 
that ever after nothing of importance could be found in 
systems of philosophy, jurisprudence, theology, and reli- 
gion, that was not in Mr. C.'s book, at least in its principle. 
Finally we will suppose that Dr. Dempster has written 
an able work in defence and in explanation of Mr. C.'s 
book, similar to that which Mr. Watson has written in 
defence and in explanation of the Bible. Now suppose I 



142 WATSOn'8 theological INSTmJTES 

should publish a review of the doctor's work, and declare 
it to be " a mere begging of the question," and that he was 
"all the while arguing in a vicious circle," and further, 
that "if there be no prior proof of God's existence out of" 
Mr. C.'s book, "there can be no proof of its truth." Sup- 
pose, too, that I should assume that Mr. C.'s book contained 
nothing but mere assertion, and insist, withal, that till the 
being and attributes of a God are proved " from the mate- 
rial universe and from the intuitions of the human mind," 
his book affords no evidence of the being of a God, or that 
it contains a revelation from God. " True," I continue, 
" we have a book which professes to be a revelation from 
God — a book which says ' there is a God ! ' and which re- 
cords numerous ' appearances of God to men in bygone 
days.' But that assertion is no proof that such a being does 
exist, any more than the assertion of the Koran or the 
Zendavesta, until I have rationally demonstrated that " this 
book "is an authentic revelation, and that here I have the 
veritable words of God." Kow suppose Dr. Dempster' to 
have written largely to prove the ^nuineness and authen- 
ticity of Mr. C.'s book, and suppose him to have written 
some two hundred pages to prove that the miracles and 
prophecies recorded in Mr. C.'*s book were established facts, 
and that these miracles and prophecies proved those teach- 
ings, of which they are the seals, to be from that God in 
whose name Mr, C wrought the miracles, and by whose 
inspiration he delivered the prophecies; I say, suppose I 
should ignore all this, and speak of Mr. C.'s book and of 
the doctor's defence of it as they have of the Bible and of 
Watson's Institutes, what would those gentlemen think of 
me ? What would they say of me ? Would they consider 
it highly creditable to my intelligence and candor to ignore 
all the miracles and prophecies recorded in Mr. C.'s book, 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 143 

and proceed to argue against it on the assumption that it 
contained no more than mere assertion, and that, conse- 
quently, till evidence is brought from a source independent 
of Mr. C.'s book, it is of no more authority than the Koran 
or Zendavesta ? Would they not claim that the fact of the 
passage through the Chesapeake Bay, and the facts of the 
other miracles, deserved at least a passing notice ? Nay, 
would they not claim that these facts remained facts, 
whether they did or did not, whether they could or could 
not, prove the being of a God from the material universe? 
Would they not insist that there is no connection whatever 
between such facts and the question whether the being of 
a God can be proved from the visible world ? Would they 
not be likely to ask, " Even if we should ' prove the exist- 
ence of a God froSa the facts of the material universe,' how 
would that prove Mr. C.'s book to be the word of Go i ? 
And even though we could not prove, from the matefaal 
universe, the being of a God clothed with infinite attributes, 
would not the miracles and prophecies prove the being of 
the God in whose name. Mr. C. wrought the miracles, and 
by whose inspiration he prophesied ? " Other questions 
might be asked, but these will suffice, and the application 
is sufficiently obvious. Here it is : " Whatsoever you would 
that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them, for 
this is the law and the prophets." Following this rule, the 
Bible and Watson's Institutes would never, be represented 
as they are in the quotations which we have given above. 
From miracles and prophecy, Mr. Watson claims to have 
proved the Scriptures to be " a revelation from God.'? As 
the above quotations from Watson's reviewer indicate that 
Watson has taken all this for granted without even at- 
tempting a proof, we will, give a' quotation from vol. i, p. 
237. " The great principle of the English proto-infidel, ' the 



144: Watson's theologicaj. institutes 

sufficiency of our natural faculties to form a religion for 
ourselves, and to decide upon the merits of revealed truth,' 
is, however, the principle of all [all the infidels whose 
views he had just stated]; and this being once conceded, 
the instances just given are sufficiently in proof that the 
cable is slipped, and that every one is left to take his course 
wherever the currents may impel his unpiloted^ uncharted^ 
and uncompassed bark The grand principle of error 
[' the sufficiency of our natural faculties to form a religion 
for ourselves, and to decide upon the merits of revealed 
truth '], between which and absolute atheism there are but 
a few steps, has been largely refuted in the foregoing pages, 
and the claims of the Holy Scriptures to be considered as a 
revelation from God, estabhshed by arguments, the force 
of which in all other cases is felt, and acknowledged, and 
acted upon even by unbelievers themselves. If this has 
been done satisfactorily, the objections which remain are 
of little weight, were they even less capable of being re- 
pelled.'' 

We will simply call attention to four particulars in the 
above quotation. First, the great principle of infidelity, 
and the terrible consequence of embracing it. This prin- 
ciple, he says, " has been largely refuted in the foregoing 
pages." And in refuting this principle, he has refuted the 
great principle of transcendentalism, as we showed for- 
merly. Second, the Scriptures claim to be a revelation 
from God. Third, this claim, he says, he has " established 
by arguments, the force of which in all other cases is felt, 
and acknowledged, and acted upon even by unbelievers 
themselves." Fourth, this being done, "the objections 
which remain are of little weight, were they even less 
capable of being repelled." This conclusion is exactly in 
harmony with that of Butler, i. e., " The only question 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 145 

concerning the truth of Christianity is, whether it be a 
•revelation." The arguments by which he claims to have 
" established " this grand truth cover about one hundred 
and sixty pages, and are based upon miracles and prophecy, 
for upon the internal and collateral evidences he does not 
lay much stress, at least not upon the former. Of these 
miracles, however, Watson's reviewer takes no notice, and, 
without attempting to refute the arguments based upon 
them, he tells his readers that Watson " has first to assume 
what he cannot prove," viz., the being of a God, and he 
asserts this simply because Watson, after giving numerous 
reasons, cannot see reason to conclude that man originated 
a knowledge of the God of the Bible, and concludes by 
saying : " Matter of fact does not, therefore, support the 
notion that the existence of God is discoverable by the 
unassisted faculties of man ; and there is, I conceive, very 
slender reason to admit the abstract possibility.'* For this 
he is represented as " doing business on a fictions capital — 
passing what we know is not good coin." We claim, how- 
ever, that he has established by irrefragable argument 
what Butler declares to be " the only question concerning 
the truth of Christianity." Indeed, this seems to us so 
obvious we know not how any one can fail to see it ; for, 
to prove the Bible to be a revelation from that Being 
whose natural and moral attributes are declared to be in- 
finite, is to prove it to be true^ unless you suppose such a 
Being to be capable of making a mistake, or of saying what 
is not true ; but such a supposition is, of course, impos- 
sible. The conclusion, therefore, is inevitable : to prove the 
Bible to be a revelation from God, is to prove it to be " true 
and righteous altogether." And as its miracles and proph- 
ecies afford such a proofs it follows that the Bible is 
COMPLETE IN ITSELF, complete both as to its teaching 
1 



146 watson's theological institutes 

as to the evidence which it affords that its teachings are of 
God. Indeed, it seems to us unreasonable in the very ex- 
treme to suppose that God would give us a book upon the 
truth of which we are to rest our eternal all, and which we 
are to believe upon pain of eternal damnation, though it 
does not contain evidence that it is a revelation from God, 
and is, therefore, utterly destitute of authority, and utterly 
unreliable. It is, therefore, good for just nothing at all, 
unless so far as it may happen to take our fancy. Such an 
idea is utterly inadmissible ; it cannot be entertained for a 
moment. If I believed that the Bible contained no evi- 
dence that it is a revelation from God, how could I go 
forth and enforce its teachings upon my fellow men by the 
sanction of eternal life and eternal death ? How could any 
man do so ? N^or will it help the matter in the least to say 
that the being of a God can be proved from " the facts of 
the universe," for, as I said before, that woifld not prove 
that the Bible is a revelation from God ; if it does not con- 
tain in itself evidence that it is a revelation from God, " the 
facts of the universe " cannot impart that evidence to it. 
And if it does contain evidence that it is a revelation from 
God, then its teachings are as true as they are complete^ and 
as complete as they are true. It will follow, of course, that 
Watson is right, transcendentalism wrong, and the con- 
troversy is forever decided, by proving that the Bible con- 
tains in itself evidence that it is a revelation from that 
God beside whom there is not another; in other words, 
by proving that it contains in itself evidence that it is 
what it professes to be. On the other hand, if it does not 
contain such evidence, then, as Watson says, " the cable is 
slipped, and every one is left to take his course wherever 
the winds and the currents may impel his unpiloted^ un- 
charted^ and uncompassed bark." So true it is " that the 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 14:7 

only question concerning the truth of Christianity is, whe- 
ther it be a revelation." Thus we turn the tables again, 
by showing that the teachings of Watson's opponents, not 
those of "Watson, 'tend to infidelity ! 

The following sketch on the inspiration of the Scriptures, 
though not originally designed for this work, seems to 
comprehend all we wish to say here, and perhaps all that 
need be said on this subject : 

As to the nature and extent of the insjDiration of the 
Scrii^tures, I conceive it consists in such a communication 
of assistance, by the Holy Spirit, as enabled the sacred 
writers to write and speak \fith infallible truthfulness. 

As to the extent of that assistance or inspiration, that 
would vary with what they wrote and spoke. 

For instance, when, as historians, they recorded facts or 
events, they were so assisted as to do so with infallible 
truthfulness. When the facts or events recorded consisted 
simply of what they had seen or heard perhaps years be- 
fore, then it was principally their memory that was assisted ; 
according to that promise, "He [the Holy Spirit] shall 
bring all things to your remembrance whatever I have said 
unto you." When they were called upon to speak im- 
promptu, as they frequently were, before their enemies, and 
various authorities, then perhaps we might say it was their 
judgment principally that was assisted, according to that 
promise, "The Holy Ghost shall teach you in that same hour 
what ye ought to say." When they wrote and spoke as 
prophets, all we can say is, they were so assisted as to an- 
nounce certain events which should take place long after 
the announcement, and which did take place according to 
their announcement ; as, for instance, the birth and acts of 
Cyrus, and those of Jesus Christ. Sometimes the sacred 
writers recorded events which had taken place before they 



148 Watson's theological institutes 

themselves were born ; for instance, the history of the 
creation, by Moses. In this instance, it is clear the assist- 
ance was not communicated to the memory, nor does it 
seem proper to say that it was communicated either to the 
judgment or to the perceptive faculty ; all that can be said 
is that which the inspired writers themselves have said ; 
tbey "wrote and spoke as they were moved by the Holy 
Ghost." 

With regard to the moral teachings of holy writ, we 
may observe that the sum thereof was written by the finger 
of God upon two tables of stone, and delivered to Moses in 
the presence of millions of people, accompanied by the su- 
pernatural phenomena of which we have already spoken. 
And in writing those moral precepts which are included, 
though not specified, in the ten commandments, and apply- 
ing them to all the purposes of life, as they have done, the 
sacred writers had the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit. 
It should be observed, too, that Jesus Christ himself, who is 
the source of all light and truth, teaches us the nature and 
use of the ten commandments when he tells us that the 
sum is love to God and man. 

All the doctrines also the inspired penmen had from 
God by direct revelation. For instance, God made known 
his own being and attributes to Moses, to whom he showed 
his glory, and with whom he talked as a man with his 
friend. The doctrine of the resurrection, and that of the 
general judgment, St. Paul tells us, he had " by the word of 
the Lord." And many of the doctrines they had from the 
lips of Jesus Christ while he Avas present with them on 
earth. And in recording his words, as already stated, they 
were so guided by the Holy Spirit as to make the record 
with infallible truthfulness. At other times they announced 
doctrines and prophecies under the plenary inspiration of 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 149 

the Holy Ghost. So that the entire teaching of holy writ 
comes to us by direct revelation from God. 

As to the evidence by which these teachings are proved 
to be from God, it is necessary to observe that there are 
three distinct parlies occupying three distinct positions, 
and each party has evidence adapted to the position which 
it occupies. The parties are, first, the inspired writers to 
whom the revelations were made ; second, those who were 
present when such revelations were made, and witnessed 
the phenomena that accompanied them ; and, third, those 
who were not present, because living in a different locality, 
or in a different as:e. 

The party inspired had an inward evidence that was 
peculiar and satisfactory to themselves, and which none 
but God could give ; and this was accompanied and corrob- 
orated by outward phenomena of which God only could 
be the author. For instance, Moses had such evidence at 
the burning bush, in Egypt, at Sinai, and on many other 
occasions. Joshua, too, had similar evidence, not only 
while Moses lived, but also after he died. See first chap- 
ter of Joshua, also fifth chapter and thirteenth and following 
verses. Read also the history of Samuel and others during 
the period of the Judges, who were quite familiar with such 
divine communications, being so frequently under the di- 
vine inflatus, and who were known by the whole nation to 
" speak the word of the Lord." Read, too, Isaiah vi. 1-8. 
Also, the first chapter of Jeremiah. It will be well, too, to 
study, and study carefully, the visions of Ezekiel by the 
river Chebar, where, we are told, " The word of the Lord 
came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Bnzi, in 
the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar ; and the 
hand of the Lord was there upon him." See the first three 
'•hapters of Ezekiel. Read also the book of Daniel, par- 



150 watson's theological institutes 

ticnlarly the tenth chapter. And, in the New Testament, it 
will suflSce to read the second chapter of the Acts of the 
Apostles, the twelfth chapter of Second Corinthians to the 
ninth verse ; and the first chapter of Revelation, particularly 
from the tenth verse. In a word, they all had that pecu- 
liar inward assurance which none but God could give, cor- 
roborated by phenomena of which none but God could be 
the author. They also, in many instances, had evidence 
from the fulfilment of their own prophecies ; indeed, most 
of the miracles were the fulfilment of predictions that pre- 
ceded them. In addition to the instances already given 
take the following : In 1 Samuel xii, 16-18, we read thus : 
*' Now therefore stand and see this great thing, which the 
LoKD will do before your eyes. Is it not wheat harvest to- 
day ? I will call unto the Lokd, and he shall send thunder 
and rain ; that ye may perceive and see that your wicked- 
ness is great, which ye have done in the sight of the Lord, 
in asking you a king. So Samuel called unto the Lord ; and 
the Lord sent thunder and rain that day : and all the people 
greatly feared the Lord and Samuel." The prediction of Eli- 
jah and the long drought that followed are well known. Also 
his prayers in answer to which the copious rains descended 
at one time, and consuming fire at another. In connection 
with this read Jer. v. 24, x. 13, and xiv. 22, and you will 
see that the God of the Bible claims that he only has power 
to send and withhold the rain. "Are there any among 
the vanities of the Gentiles that can cause rain ? or can the 
heavens give showers ? Art not thou he, O Lord our God ? 
therefore we will wait upon thee : for thou hast made all 
these things.'*'' Similar instances abound in the New Tes- 
tament. The death of Ananias and Sapphira his wife, the 
blindness of Elymas the sorcerer, and the predictions of 
Peter and Paul, which preceded those events, are also 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 151 

well known : they are only two out of numerous instances 
of a similar kind in which miracle and prophecy are con- 
nected. These may be considered specimens of what Paul 
calls " the signs of an apostle," and by which he vindicates 
liis claims to inspiration. '" Truly," he says, " the signs of 
ai: apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in 
signs and wonders, and mighty deeds." Any one who will 
carefully read the above and similar scriptures, will see that 
the inspired writers had abundance of evidence that God 
spake to and by them ; such evidence as none but God 
could give, and such as rendered mistake simply impos- 
sible." 

The second party heard the inspired writers proclaim 
their divine and well-attested messages, and sometimes 
heard God himself, and were eye and ear witnesses of the 
wonderful phenomena, as at Sinai, at the baptism of our 
blessed Lord, and at the outpouring of the Spirit on the 
day of Pentecost. And the thousands in the wilderness 
were not only permitted to see and hear while Jesus spake, 
and the bread and the fish increased in his creative grasp 
befoi-e their eyes, but did also eat thereof, and were satis- 
fied. This party were also, for the most part, acquainted 
with the life and character of the parties claiming to be in- 
spired. They knew them to be persons of good judgment 
and unblemished character; they also were witnesses of 
what accompanied and followed the promulgation and re- 
ception of Scripture truth ; and in addition to all this, they 
had, in common with all others, the' evidence afforded by 
fulfilled prophecy. 

The third party have the well-authenticated facts re- 
corded in the Bible,* and interwoven with the histories of 

* See " Leslie's Method with the Deists," at the end of the book. 



152 WATSOn's theological INSTmiTES 

all the ancient nations, as given by their own histoiians 
and principal writers. The facts ^ for instance, that the 
prophets, apostles, and Jesus Christ lived, wrote, spoke, 
and acted as is recorded of them in the Bible ; that their 
claims to inspiration were attested by the miracles recorded, 
and under the circumstances and in the presence of the 
spectators specified. They have also the indisputable facts, 
that many of the events which the inspired writers de- 
clared would take place, have taken place precisely as pre 
dieted. Now all these facts are inseparably connected with 
the doctrines and morals of the Bible. In other words, 
with the teachings of the Bible. To deny the facts^ is 
folly in the extreme ; and to admit them, is to admit that 
the teachings of the Bible are the teachings of the God of 
the Bible. For these facts involve the exercise of attri- 
butes which belong only to God Almighty ; and they were 
exerted to prove this very thing, namely, that these teach- 
mgs are the teachings of the God of the Bible. Mark, I do 
not say to prove the existence of a Supreme Being, but to 
prove the being of that very God vrhom the inspired writers 
represent as clothed with infinite attributes, from whom 
they received their teachings, and beside whom they de- 
clare there is not another! "Hear, O Israel: The Lord 
our God is one Lord." " There is none else beside him." 
" Thou art God alone." 

It follows, that our belief, as to tke inspiration of the 
Scriptures, rests upon numerous and indisputable facts, 
and these facts of such a nature, that they are obviously 
the offspring of God's loisdom, power, omniscience, good- 
ness^ and Justice. Prophecies demonstrate his omniscience ; 
miracles, by which the heavenly bodies and the earth are 
arrested in their motions, as when the sun and moon are 
said to have stood still ; miracles, by which the lights of 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 153 

heaven are extinguished, and the earth wrapt in darkness 
at midday ; miracles, by which the laws of nature, as they 
are called, are suspended, thrown aside, or even reversed ; 
as in raising the dead, dividing the sea, throwing the stream 
of Jordan backward, or at least arresting it at a given 
point, controlling the winds and the waves in a moment ; 
I say miracles such as these, and others recorded in Scrip- 
ture, certainly indicate the exercise of a power that con- 
trols the universe, and that power must be the power of 
the omnipotent God ; his signal judgments on the wicked, 
as in the case of the antediluvian. world, and the overthrow 
of the cities of the plain, as also the death of Jesus Christ, 
are striking proofs of his justice ; while the end obviously 
aimed at in the work of creation and redemption, together 
with the marvellous economy of grace and providence, 
which includes miracles and prophecy, alike prove his 
wisdom and goodness. Thus the mspiration of the Scrip- 
tures, the power, omniscience, justice, wisdom, and good- 
we55 of God, are established with all the certaintv of facts. 
which facts are as indisputable as our very being. Such i? 
the book which we claim to be com,plete in itself, and such 
are some of our reasons for so doing. Yet we are sent to 
the masses of gross matter with which we are surrounded 
to prove from thence the being and attributes of an Al- 
mighty Spirit, and are confidently assured that, if we can- 
not do that, " there can be no proof that the Bible is of 
God." Do the philosophers who teach thus really know 
that this is the triumphant utterance of almost every young 
sceptic and old infidel in the land ? Do they know that 
the assumed sufficiency of the book of nature, of the human 
reason, of the human conscience, together with the assump- 
tion that the Bible does not contain evidence of " the ex- 
istence of a God," does not contain evidence that " it is a 



154: watson's theological institutes 

revelation from God," are the reasons assigned by such 
young sceptics and old infidels, for absenting themselves 
from public worship, crying out priestcraft, and rejecting 
the whole system of Christianity ? Do they know that 
such teachings are increasing the number of such sceptics 
continually? Do they know that between such teachings 
and infidelity there really is no ground upon which a man 
can stand ? I say do they know all this ? If they do not, 
they are seriously defective in knowledge, especially as 
public teachers. And if they do, their professed fidelity to 
the Christian system is more than questionable. 

But there is another way in which any man may prove, 
not only that there is a God, but also, that the Bible is a 
revelation from God. The way is very easy, and very sim- 
ple, so much so, that it is within the reach of all who can 
hear the word of the Lord, for this way is only known by 
a revelation from God, even the God of the Bible, who 
makes it known in these words : " Call unto me, and I will 
answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things, which 
thou knowest not." " The Lord is nisrh unto all them that 
call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth." " If any 
man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether 
it be of God." " Whosoever shall call upon the name of the 
Lord shall be saved." " All things whatsoever ye shall 
ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive." *' I say unto 
you, what things soever ye desire when ye pray, believe 
that ye receive them^ and ye shall have thern.^'' Now any 
man may test the truth of this doctrine, even though he 
never saw the material world, though he had been born 
blind ! And, remember, to establish the truth of this doc- 
trine, is to establish the truth of every doctrine in ^ the 
Bible. This statement is so evidently true' that we think it 
entirely unnecessary to stop here to prove it. And it 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. .155 

would be still more a Avork of supererogation to Htop to 
proA'e that prayers offered to the God of the Bible, by 
the children of men, have been answered. Concerning the 
last of the promises, quoted above, that holy woman, 
Mrs. Hester Ann Rodgers, records the following testi- 
mony: "I have proved it in a thousand instances, and 
never knew it to fail in one." This is but one out of mil- 
lions of testimonies to the truth of this blessed doctrine, 
that the God of the Bible hears and answers the prayers 
of the children of men when they offer them as the Bible 
teaches. And to show that the most ignorant and help- 
less of the poor fallen children of Adam may comply with 
that teaching, and, consequently, do that very thing which 
Watson's opponents say cannot be done, I will give a single 
instance, which I had from an eminent minister of the Gos- 
pel, who some years ago went to his reward. He said he 
was visiting in a certain hospital where he found a poor 
woman so ignorant that he despaired of reaching her judg- 
ment with the truth he desired to communicate, she being 
entirely unacquainted with Bible teaching, and quite un- 
educated. He, however, adopted this method: he obtain- 
ed her promise that she would offer to the God of the Bible 
the following prayer, repeating it frequently till he should 
return again : *' O God, show me my heart, for Christ's 
sake. Amen." He left her repeating this prayer, and on 
returning a short time after, found her deeply penitent, 
exclaiming, " O sir, God has showed me my heart, and it 
is so bad ! What will I do ? " These are the words, as 
near as I can remember. He then gave her this prayer : 
" O God, pardon my sin, and give me a new heart, for 
Christ's sake." He left her repeating this prayer, and on 
returning some time after he found her rejoicing, and re- 
joiced with her, while she declared that God had both par- 



156 watson's theological nreTmiTES 

doned her sin and given her a new heart. Oh, how much 
better it was to adopt this method than to leave this poor 
woman to "the facts of the material universe, and the in- 
tuitions of her mind," to prove the being of a God, giving 
as the reason that, " if there be no prior proof of God's 
existence out of the JBihle, there can be no proof that the 
Bible is of God." My dear sir, here is proof without the 
slightest reference to anything out of the Bible. This poor 
woman obeys one single command of the Bible, by praying 
to the God of the Bible, and she receives a direct answer 
to her prayer, an unmistakable answer, and such as none 
but God Almighty could give ; and that answer consisted 
in her receiving the very blessings which she requested. 
Now if those philosophers, so called, who reject the Bible, 
should affect to despise this proof becj^use of its simplicity, 
surely they wUl not do so who profess to believe and teach 
the Bible; seeing they cannot slight this kind of proof 
without slighting both the Bible and its author. The fol- 
lowing is one of the instances in which the Bible tells us 
this kind of proof was adopted, and adopted with glorious 
success: "And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, 
How long halt ye between two opinions ? If the Lord be 
God, follow him : but if Baal, then follow him. And the 
people answered him not a word. Then said Elijah unto the 
people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the Lord ; but 
Baal's prophets are four hundred and JBfty men. Let them, 
therefore, give us two bullocks; and let them choose one 
bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay it on 
wood, and put no fire under : and I will dress the other 
bullock, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under. And 
call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name 
of the Lord : and the God that answereth by fire, let him 
be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 157 

spoken." Prayer was offered to Baal by his worshippers 
from morning till noon, and continued even " till the time 
of the offering of the evening sacrifice," but " there was 
neither voice, nor any to answer, nor any that regarded." 
Then Elijah having "built an altar in the name of the 
LoKD," drew near and said, " Hear me, O Lokd, hear me, 
that this people may know that thou art the Lokd God, 
and that thou hast turned their heart back again. Then 
the fire of the Lord fell, and consumed the burnt-sacrifice, 
and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up 
the water that was in the trench. And when all the peo- 
ple saw it they fell on their faces ; and they said. The Lord, 
he is the God ; the Lokd, he is the God." Now we simply 
call attention to the following particulars : First, the God 
of the Bible is rejected, and Baal, that is, a dumb idol, is 
substituted in his place, and almost an entire nation bow 
down to, and worship him, according to the " intuitions of 
their pure reason," and in defiance of *'the facts of the 
material universe," with which they were surrounded : 
here are ignorance and indolatry in some of their worst 
forms, and that in the land of Israel ! Second, it is pro- 
posed that, to find out the true God, prayer shall be offer- 
ed : and it is agreed on all hands that " the God that 
answereth by fire " shall be recognized and worshipped as 
the true God. To this " all the people answered and said. 
It is well spoken." This kind of test had not occurred to 
the people, but as soon as it is presented to the mind, 
accompanied of course by the supernatural light and power 
that always accompany revelations from God, their com- 
mon sense at once approves of it ; there was not one tran- 
scendentalist, as far as we know, found among them; not 
one to say : " If we owe our knowledge of the existence 
of God to revelation alone, then it is impossible to prove. 



158 watson's theological institutes 

iogically, the existence of God;" not one to say: "If we 
owe the knowledge of the existence of God to revelation 
alone, then we cannot, by human reason, prove that the 
Bible is a revelation from God." Such conclusions have 
no countenance, on this occasion, either from God, his 
prophet, or the people : they all agree, that a direct and 
unmistakable answer to prayer, will be proof sufficient, 
without any " prior proof of God's existence out of the 
Bible." And well they might, for it was an indisputable 
fact, that despite all such proofs, be they great or small, 
conclusive or inconclusive, the people were ignorant of the 
true God, so ignorant that they were gross idolaters. The 
sun, beautiful as is that heavenly body, was so far from 
demonstrating to that people the being and attributes of 
the true God, that they worshipped the sun itself! Third, 
this proof, as might be expected, answers the end pro- 
posed ; for as soon as Elijah's prayer was answered, " all 
the people fell on their faces ; and they said, The Lord, he 
is the God ; the Lord, he is the God." Fourth, this God, 
who " is plenteous in mercy," confirms the faith of this de- 
luded, but now believing people, by another gracious and 
wonderful answer to prayer, offered by the same man — the 
man who more than three years before had publicly said, 
" As the Lord God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, 
there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according 
to ray word," now calls again upon this- prayer-answering 
God, " The Lord God of Israel," who answered the former 
prayer by fire, but who answers this prayer by sending a 
copious rain upon the thirsty land ; and thus blessing the 
people whose departure from the true God had caused the 
long drought, but who have now returned to him, even to 
the God who answereth prayer. Fifth, it is evident that 
the God who answered these prayers has complete control 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 159^ 

•}f mind and matter — has absolute control over all worlds^ 
he invisible as well as the visible ; for if wicked spirits, 
who are opposed to all good, could have sent either fire or 
rain, they would certainly have done so, and thus have 
frustrated the designs of God and his prophet. But they 
could do neither the one nor the other. They could do 
just nothing at ^11 beyond what the God of Elijah saw fit 
to permit. If he says there shall be no rain, there can bo 
none. If he says the fire shall not fall upon that idolatrous 
altar, all the devils in hell cannot communicate a single 
spark to it, much as they have to do with the fiery regions. 
If he commands the fire and the rain to fall, they come 
down, and there is no power that can possibly prevent it. 
The people saw this ; they could not but see it ; hence they 
cry out, " The Lord, He is the God ; the Lord, He is the 
God." Thus, what God demonstrated by miracles in the land 
of Egypt, that same he demonstrated in the land of Israel 
by answering prayer, even that he is God, and beside him 
there is not another ! So clear it is that revelation is com- 
plete in itself — carries its own evidence with it. God, by 
revelation, says to man, " Call upon me and I will answer." 
Man calls, and the direct answer is received. And the 
answer is such that it proves these two points, first, that it 
comes from the God to whom the prayer was offered ; 
second, that this God has absolute control over all worlds, 
beings, and laws, at least as far as our knowledge extends. 
And these two points being proved, it follows, of course, 
that this God is worthy of our confidence and trust, and 
he only, and that the revelation which taught us to pray, 
must be from him who answered our prayers. Thus, again, 
we see, that revelation imparts perfect teaching, and per- 
fect evidence that its teaching is the teaching of God Al- 
mighty. And these two particulars, it is evident, compre- 



160 Watson's theological institutes 

hend everything ; these being true there, is absolutely 
nothing wanting. It is strictly true that, " The law of the 
Lord is perfect : the testimony of the Lord is sure, making 
wise the simple." 

The following quotation from Watson's sermon on "The 
Excellency of the Knowledge of Christ Jesus " will, we 
think, be in place here : ** Christianity appeals to experi- 
ence. It declares that certain supernatural results shall 
follow upon the use of particular means. The weary and 
heavy laden who come to Christ shall find rest unto their 
souls. Peace and joy are consequent upon believing in 
him. The heart is purified by faith. The prayer of faith 
shall be answered. The way of practical holiness is a way 
of pleasantness and peace. What, then, is the fact ? Let 
the appeal be made to sincere Christians in every age and 
place. Have they used the remedy in vain ? Does the 
gospel describe a state of heart which they have never 
found ? Has their prayer never been answered ? Do wis- 
dom's ways answer the description given of them ? Speak- 
ing of his Father, our Lord said : "If any man will do his 
will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God, 
or whether I speak of myself." By prophecy, miracles, and 
the unanimous testimony of experienced Christians, the 
gospel is confirmed to us as the sure word of God. O 
blessed knowledge, so assured ! Tossed on a sea of doubt, 

' Here is firm footing, here is solid rock. 
This can sustain us : all is sea beside.' " 

He had previously spoken of miracles and prophecy, in 
proof of revelation ; here he adduces experience for the 
same purpose, and one of the particulars included in the 
Christian experience is the answer to prayer ofifered to the 
(^od of the Bible in the name of Jesus Christ. That the 



AND TUE BIBLE DEFENDED. 161 

miracles of the Bible, the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible, 
and the fulfilled promises of the Bible, in answer to prayer, 
prove tlie truth of revelation, is Watson's position. And, 
with him, we have attempted to defend this position, and 
our defence is before the reader. Dr. Dempster, however, 
as well as Watson's reviewer, maintains that " if there be 
no prior proof of God's existence out of the 3ible^ there 
can be no proof that the Bible is of God." 



162 watson's theological institutes 



CHAPTEE y. 

As this is a defence of " Watson's Theological Institutes," 
and as the design of Dr. Dempster is one with that of Mr. 
Cocker, it seems necessary that we should quote the doctor 
more at length, both in justice to him and in justice to 
Mr. Watson. 

The doctor says, "Deductions from the mind's own first 
principles constitute a priori reasoning." These principles 
he variously denominates, at different times, " mental intui- 
tions," " primary truths," " primary judgments," "intui- 
tive truths," " first truths," " verities," " axioms.'' And 
concerning them he reasons thus : " As the rejection of 
these is the sole ground on which the theistic d priori 
argument is pronounced impossible, the necessity of these 
must restore that argument to its primary place in this dis- 
cussion. How else can proof of the Divine existence be 
furnished ? Is this proof ever attempted in revelation ? 
If not, where and when has it ever been attempted ? Is it 
susceptible of proof, or is it not ? Is it merely a fact that 
God's existence is not proved in revelation ? or is it a neces- 
sity that it is not ? If it cannot be proved without revela- 
tion, evidence will appear invincible that it cannot by reve- 
lation ; and if it cannot be proved by revelation or without 
revelation, it cannot be proved at all. This is exactly the 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 163 

conclusion reached by Kant and his followers, by Hamilton 
and his school, by Mansel and his admirers, and, we regret 
to add, by Mr. Watson and that entire class of divines who 
deny the possibility of natueal Theology* What would 
be the response of those learned rejectors of natural reli- 
gion, should it be shown that revelation is unsusceptible of 
proof of its Divine Author f' * * * * " Our position is, 
that an authoritative revelation cannot be authenticated 
until prior evidence has proved its author." * * * " There 
is either proof of him without revelation, or there can be 
no proof of revelation." (" K W. C. A.," Dec. 17, 1862, ar- 
ticle No. 2.) 

As the doctor's first article, which will be found in the 
issue of the previous week, is little more than a rehearsal of 
what Mr. Cocker had said, we had concluded not to quote 
from it, but we now see reasons for giving the following 
quotation from it : one reason is, he is pleased to construct 
certain arguments for his opponents, which they beg to say 
are not theirs, and would much prefer to construct their 
own arguments. 

After speaking of what he calls " the sensational 
scheme," " the materialistic theory," " that of innate 
ideas," and of that which declares " that there are specific 
forms into which thought develops itself, as the acorn into 
the oak ; " and, after speaking of certain " profound di- 
vines " who " deny the possibiHty of natural theology ; " 
and after earnestly deprecating the terrible and " far-reach- 
ing consequences " of all this, he thus proceeds : 

" Then arises the startling inquiry, if no utterance of 
him comes from these sources [' the mind's own first prin- 
ciples ' and the material world], can there be any from rev- 
elation ? Is it promptly answered ' that the miracles of 
revelation prove the infinity of their author ? ' But if ten 



164: watson's theological institutes 



^ 



thousand divine manifestations in nature fail to indicate 
him, how can the few that signalize the Scriptures manifest 
him ? Has revelation ever attempted to prove a God ? 
Where there is the least appearance of such attempt, is it 
not by an appeal to nature ? Is it not thus based on the 
foundation of natural theology ? "Was not nature equally 
significant prior to all such appeals ? But, if it had no 
such significancy, how could the Bible truthfully appeal to 
it for such purpose ? How can a mere declaration prove 
his existence ? Not unless something of him was previ- 
ously known. If profoundly ignorant of their author, how 
can miracles assure us of the divinity of their author? 
How could they delineate his character? Is the reply, 
that they were benignant in their nature ? Be it so. But 
how many deceivers have showed kindness in order to 
inveigle their victims ? If this stupendous creation and our 
wondrous constitution of mind are utterly silent of their 
great Creator, how can mere werds, uttered by, we know 
not whom, reveal him ? How can a few isolated miracles 
do this if all that have conspired to construct the creation 
fail to do it ? " 

The reader has now a faithful exhibit of the doctor's 
position in this controversy, and of the arguments by which 
he attempts to establish that position. Of what the doctor 
calls "the mind's own first principles," and the "deduc- 
tions " therefrom, which he says " constitute ct priori reason- 
ing," we have already spoken at some length in a former 
part of this defence, and, consequently, have nothing to 
say here on these points. That the Bible is complete in 
itself, in evidence as well as teaching, has already been 
shown, so that what the doctor says to the contrary, in the 
above quotations, needs no further notice, though, even on 
these points, we may take occasion to notice the weakness 
of some of his. remarks. 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 165 

Copying after the example of Mr. Cocker, it would 
seem, the doctor connects Mr. "Watson with what he calls 
"the sensational scheme," the "materialistic theory," and 
includes him amongst certain "profound divines," and 
"learned rejectors of natural religion," whom he represents 
as teaching that the existence of a God " cannot be proved 
by revelation or without revelation," and therefore not at 
all. "This," he adds, "is exactly the conclusion reached 
by Kant and his followers, by Hamilton and his school, by 
Mansel and his admirers, and we regret to add, by Mr. 
Watson and that entire class of divines who deny the pos- 
sibility of NATURAL thcology ! '*'* Mr. Cocker represents 
Watson as teaching what " must inevitably land in pure 
materialism," and Dr. Dempster represents him as teach- 
ing that " it," God's existence, " cannot be proved at all ; " 
so that, according to the doctor, his teaching must land in 
atheism, while, according to Mr. Cocker, it " must inevitably 
land in materialism." To find evidence of these dreadful 
charges the latter refers us to " the chapters on the pre- 
sumptive evidence," * * * * " on the moral law," and " on 
the existence of God." But the latter is pleased to give us 
his simple assertion to that effect, without quoting so much 
as one syllable from Watson's writings in proof of his asser- 
tion ! As our reply to Mr. Cocker is a reply to the doctor 
on this point, we have only to add that it seems to us very 
wrong for the Methodist Episcopal Church to make the 
candidates for her ministry study " Watson's Theological 
Institutes " for four years, and, at the same time, by her 
periodicals and theological teachers represent them as 
above ! We submit, with all deference, whether she should 
not either exclude " The Institutes " from " the course of 
study," or effect some change in her editorial and theologi- 
cal departments. The doctor goes on : " Is it promptly 



166 watson's theological institutes , 

answered, * that the miracles of revelation prove the infinity 
of their Author? How can a few isolated miracles do 
this, if all that have conspired to construct the creation fail 
to do it ? " I will tell you, doctor. " All that have con- 
spired to construct the creation," do not and cannot prove 
that Moses and the other loriters of the Scriptures were 
teachers sent from God / but miracles do this ; even 
though they were few ; but they are not few, they are 
VERY MANY ! AND VERY GREAT ! — SO much SO as to demon- 
strate that their Author has absolute control of the heav- 
ens above, and of the earth beneath, and of all that therein 
is ; so far as« our observation extends, beyond which, of 
course, we know nothing, save by testimony ; and that tes- 
timony we have from the writers of the Scriptures, whose 
claims are established by miracles^ prophecy^ and ansioers 
to prayer. The testimony asserts the being of an eternal 
God, clothed with infinite attributes : and the phenomena 
by which the truthfulness of that testimony is sealed to us, 
demonstrate their Author to be uncontrolled and uncon- 
trollable ! So that, if the testimony be not true, that un- 
controlled and uncontrollable Being has set his seal to 
a lie ! And if it be true, then it is certain that the Bible is 
complete in itself, both as to its teaching and as to the evi- 
dence by which that teaching is proved to be from the 
True God, besides whom there is not another ! In a word, 
the teaching^ and the phenomena hy which that teaching is 
sealed^ evidently originate in the same Being^ and the 
phenomena prove that Being to he what the teaching 
SAYS He is ! Thus the teaching and the phenomena of the 
Bible make the Bible a perfect book. Nothing can be 
added to it ; let nothing be taken from it. Neither mir- 
acles, nor the facts of the surrounding worlds, taken alone, 
can prove the being of the God of the Bible, simply because 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 167 

the limited cannot prove the unlimited^ because the finite 
cannot prove the infinite^ because nothing can impart what 
it does not possess / But fniracles and testim^ony such as 
the Bible presents, and in the connection in which it pre^ 
sents them, do most conclusively prove the being of that 
very God. It is in this connection " that the miracles of 
revelation prove the infinity of their Author." It is for 
want of attending to this connection, it is because the doc- 
tor does not observe this connection, that he asks the ques- 
tion under consideration; and it is for the same reason that 
he asks, "How can a mere declaration prove his exist- 
ence ? " No, doctor ; " a mere declaration " proves noth- 
ing at all, much less the being of a God; unless, indeed, that 
in some instances, " a mere declaration," or assertion, proves 
the folly of its author ! But the declarations that are 
proved to be the declarations of God Almighty, as are the 
declarations of the Bible, prove something ! Such declara- 
tions are infinitely reliable, they are " true and righteous 
altogether," for " God cannot lie." 

" Has revelation ever attempted to prove a God ? " con- 
tinues the doctor. " Is it merely a /act that God's existence 
is not proved in revelation ? or, is it a necessity that it is 
not." With all deference to the doctor we deny both the 
^^/act^^ and the ^^ necessity ^^ here alleged. The sacred 
writers not only prove the being of a God, but, what is far 
more, they prove the being of That God whose infinite 
perfection they set forth in strains the most glowing and 
rapturous, and in the use of terms the most sublime and 
expressive, the most elevated and glorious, and which, 
though they express so much, suggest infinitely more, leav- 
ing the mind rapt in adoring wonder, and lost in the Infi- 
nite ! And the proofs which the sacred writers give us of 
the being of this God are as extensive as are the miracles. 



168 Watson's theological institutes 

the prophecies^ and the answers to prayer which they re- 
cord, and these run through the whole book from Genesis 
to Revelations. It is thus that " the Bible shows its trust- 
worthiness." But the doctor inquires, "What would be 
the response of those learned rejectors of natural religion, 
should it be shown that revelation is unsusceptible of proof 
without prior proof of its divine Author ? " And again, 
" How can a mere declaration prove his existence ? " And 
yet again, " How can mere words, uttered by we know not 
whom, reveal him ? " To such inquiries, doctor, there can 
be but one response, namely this : *' a mere declaration, " 
and " mere words uttered by we know not whom," prove 
just nothing at all, unless, as we said before, they prove the 
folly of those who uttered them. But to represent the 
Bible as containing mere assertions without a known author 
is marvellous in the extreme, especially when this is done 
by a doctor of divinity, a theological tutor ! If this be the 
character of the Bible it is utterly unworthy of confidence, 
and the confidence hitherto placed in it has been entirely 
misplaced. Nor do we wonder that the doctor, while 
these are his views, should seek another book in which to 
place confidence. For our part, did we entertain these 
views of the Bible, we would at once turn to the book of 
nature, and take our texts from thence, or cease preaching 
altogether ; for we certainly would not preach any more 
from the Bible, while entertaining these views. And even 
though we should admit that the book of nature teaches all 
the doctor claims, and much more ; what then ? Would 
it follow that a book containing " mere words, uttered by 
we know not whom," is the Book of God ? We certainly 
can see no such consequence ; nor do we see any connection 
whatever between such premise and such conclusion. If the 
heavenly bodies were a thousand times more numerous and 



AJSD THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 169 

glorious than they are, and the dance of the spheres ten 
thousand times more enrapturing than at present ; and the 
mental and moral faculties of man a thousand times better 
than they are, still, even that would not prove that the un- 
known authors of certain assertions were teachers sent from 
God. On the other hand, if the book of nature were a 
thousand times less expressive than it is, still teachings 
sealed, as are those of the sacred writers, with miracles, 
prophecy/, and answers to prayer, would be as obviously the 
teachings of that God whose they claim to be, as they are 
at present. It follows that the assertion that " if there be 
no prior proof of God's existence out of the JBihle, there can 
be no proof that the Bible is of God," is utterly without 
foundation, and indicates a strange want of discrimination. 
But the doctor assumes that those who differ from him 
rest their cause upon the benevolence of " a few isolated 
miracles," and then proceeds to invalidate his own assump- 
tion thus : " But how many deceivers have showed kind- 
ness in order to inveigle their victims ? " That many of the 
miracles recorded in Scripture, especially those wrought by 
Jesus Christ, are characterized by godlike benevolence, is 
quite certain ; but the doctor has no right to assume that 
it is upon their benevolence alone that his opponents rest 
their cause. Those miracles which indicate the just dis- 
pleasure of their author, as well as his absolute sovereignty, 
afford their quota of evidence as well as those which 
are characterized by benevolence. Hence Mr. Watson 
says : " The flood, being so awful and marked a declaration 
of God's anger against the violation of the laws of this 
primitive religion, would give great force and sanction to 
it, as a religious system, in the minds of Noah's immediate 
descendants." And then, after specifying the principles of 
that system, and making some further remarks, he adds : 
8 



170 watson's theological institutes 

" The destruction of the wicked by the flood put the seal 
of heaven upon the religious system transmitted from 
Adam ; and under the force of this divine and unequivocal 
attestation of its truth, the sons and descendants of Noah 
went forth into their different settlements, bearing for ages 
the deep impression of its sanctity and authority." 

That the deluge and the prophetic warnings which pre- 
ceded it, and which were fulfilled by it, must be attributed 
to the Omniscient and Sovereign Ruler of heaven and earth 
is so evident, we think, as to render an attempt to prove it 
unnecessary and superfluous ; nor is it less evident that this 
terrible judgment was characterized by the justice as well 
as by the power and omniscience of its author. JN'or will 
the doctor contend, we think, that the " kindness " mani- 
fested by its author was manifested simply " in order to 
inveigle " his " victims," for the kindness shown to ISToah 
and his family was certainly sincere in its nature, and happy 
in its results. And, as to the rest of mankind, alas ! the 
terrible judgment, though just, but too plainly indicated 
that God's " mercy was clean gone," and that he had " for- 
gotten to be gracious." The openiug of the windows of 
heaven, the breaking up of the great deep, the universal 
deluge, and the universal destruction of an apostate world, 
certainly leave little room for philosophers to speculate 
upon the kindness herein shown. We think it would be 
much wiser to imitate the thoughtful and pious example of 
Mr. Watson, as indicated in the quotations given above, or 
to exclaim with Paul, " It is a fearful thmg to fall into the 
hands of the living God." The reader can easily extend 
these remarks to other and similar displays of the divine 
justice and power, in the miraculous judgments with which 
apostate men have been visited from time to time, and 
which are reco^'ded in holy writ. Such as the destruction 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 171 

of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the other cities of the plain, 
and the equally miraculous destruction of Korah, Dathan, 
and Abiram, when " the earth opened her mouth and swal- 
lowed them up," and the not less miraculous destruc- 
tion of the fourteen thousand and seven hundred by 
" the plague," on the same occasion. These and similar 
miracles afford conclusive and fearful evidence of the truth 
of the Scriptures. And there certainly is no room to con- 
clude that their author designed to deceive by the kindness 
therein manifested ! And, although the miracles of Jesus 
Christ are altogether characterized by the godlike benig- 
nity of their author, it would be both absurd and blasphe- 
mous to suspect for a moment that the author of these 
miracles designed by this manifested kindness to deceive 
and inveigle the poor, helpless, and miserable children of 
men ! Certainly he who could say to the winds and to the 
sea, " Peace, be still, and there was a great calm ; " he 
who by a word gave sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, 
utterance to the dumb, and made the lame to leap with all 
the joyful activities of the village youth in their evening 
sports ; he who by his creative power supplied the hungry 
thousands with abundance of food ; he who could control 
the fish, as vfell as the waves, of the sea, and cause one of 
them to wait upon him with the exact sum of money de- 
manded for tribute, and that at the moment required, with 
all the promptness of a faithful servant ; he who, with or 
without a word, " healed all manner of sickness and all 
manner of disease among the people," cleansed the leper 
and raised the dead ; he, I say, certainly had no need to 
deceive and inveigle the wretched and helpless children of 
men either to obtain tlffeir favor or to do them an injury ! 
The very thought is so intolerable I will not, I cannot, 
longer dwell upon it ! The fact is, the mor« I investigate 



172 watson's theological institutes 

the subject the more I am convinced that the supernatural 
phenomena of the Scriptures demonstrate their author to 
be what the Scriptures say he is. Every attempt to estab- 
lish a contrary conckision will, I am convinced, terminate 
in absurdity or worse. I say stjpernatueal phenomena, 
for all the phenomena of which we speak are purely super- 
natural. To say nothing further of miracle and prophecy, 
let us for a moment reflect on answers to prayer. At this 
moment, perhaps, millions of human spirits, scattered all 
over the earth, offer prayer to God in the name of Jesus 
Christ ; perhaps for the most part these prayers are the 
simple desires of the soul, only expressed by the falling 
tear or the unutterable sigh, yet all these prayers are 
answered ! And this is being done every moment, for 
these praying ones " cry day and night," they " pray without 
ceasing," and because their prayers are answered they " re- 
joice evermore, and in everything give thanks." Now to 
me it is as clear as a sunbeam that the Being who reads 
and understands all these praying hearts, and returns an 
answer to each prayer, according to the desire of the heart, 
•which desire was only expressed by a sigh or a tear, or 
perhaps by neither ; the Being who reads all the grateful 
feelings, as well as the prayerful desires, and hears and 
accepts all the thanksgivings of the heart ; I say to me it is 
as clear as a sunbeam that this Being must be omniscient^ 
omnipresent^ and omnipotent. In a word, he must be all 
that the Bible says he is. For to read all these hearts^ and 
answer all these prayers., he must not only he present to 
HEAR, SEE, a7id HELP, hilt he mAJLst have power and wisdom 
to control all worlds, powers, and contingencies. For 
it were to no purpose that he seS-rched their hearts, and 
heard their prayers, if there were any j90^oer5, laios., or con- 
tingencies that could prevent his returning an answer. So 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 173 

sure, then, as the God of the Bible hears prayer, and re- 
turns an answer " to all that call upon him in truth," so 
sure all who hear the teachings of the Bible can prove to 
their utmost satisfaction the being of the God of the Bible ; 
can prove " that he is a rewarder of them that diligently 
seek him ; " and all this without first proving his being 
from the material world, aU this independent of any such 
previous proof; even the man that was born blind, and, 
therefore, never saw the material world, can in this way 
prove the being of the God of the Bible. It must be ad- 
mitted that in his case, at least, " faith cometh by hearing 
the word of God." But, according to Dr. Dempster, such 
persons could not have faith at all, for it certainly could not 
come by seeing ! and the doctor says it cannot come by 
hearing ! 

We now return to Mr. C. who closes his review of 
"Watson's Institutes thus : " The science of natural theology 
is recognized by the master mind of Paul : ' That which 
may be known of God is manifested in their hearts / God 
himself having shown it unto them, for his eternal power 
and godhead, though they be invisible, yet are they seen 
fever since the world was made, heing understood hy his 
worJcs^ that they might have no excuse.' " (Romans i, 19, 
20. Conybeare and Howson's translation). 

Just here we ask two questions — first, does the above 
text establish the reviewer's position ? Second, is it op- 
posed to Watson's position ? To both these questions we 
answer, no. And if not, the text is quoted to no purj)Ose. 
The reader, we doubt not, will see the correctness of our 
negative to these questions when we present again, as we 
have done before, the position of Watson, and that of his 
reviewer ; for it is necessary that the reader should have 
these positions clearly in view in connection with the above 
text and the claims of the reviewer. 



174 • watson's theological institutes 

Watson's position is simply this ; he claims that man, 
originally, had the knowledge of God's being and attributes 
by direct revelation from God himself. See his definition 
of a iKvelation. He claims that the human family were 
never without the knowledge thus received. He also 
claims that Vr^hen any of the human family lost that knowl- 
edge they never obtained it again without supernatural as- 
sistance. And after giving numerous reasons for these 
claims, he thus concludes : " Matter of fact does not there- 
fore support the notion that the existence of God is dis- 
coverable by the unassisted faculties of man : and there is, 
I conceive, very slender reason to admit the abstract pos- 
sibility." He then adds : " The abundant rational evidence 
of the existence of God, which may now be so easily col- 
lected, and which is so convincing, is therefore no proof 
that without instruction from heaven the human mind 
would ever have made the discovery." 'Now we ask, do 
the words of Paul, quoted above, contradict what Watson 
says in the quotations here given ? Do these words of 
Paul prove that "the unassisted faculties" of fallen man 
can derive a knowledge of the God of the Bible from the 
material world ? Do they prove that " the human mind " 
without supernatural assistance could do this ? Does 
" matter of fact support this notion ? " Is there more than 
" slender reason to admit the abstract possibility " of this ? 
And though man " can now collect abundant rational " and 
" convincing evidence," does it follow that he could have 
done so by his natural powers without supernatural assist- 
ance f If the text under consideration proves the affirma- 
tive of these questions, then the evidence, or reason, for 
*' admitting the abstract possibility " of this is not as " slen- 
der " as Watson supposed it to be. That is all ! But if 
thiB text does not prove the affirmative of these questions. 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 1Y5 

then this last attempt to criminate Watson proves as un- 
successful as all the preceding. When the reviewer shall 
show that it does establish the affirmative of these questions, 
then, and not till then, will he ha^^e shown 'that Watson is 
mistaken; though it certainly would not follow that his 
teachings, for this simple reason, " must inevitably laud in 
pure materialism," much less would it follow that the re- 
viewer's position is right. Hence the necessity of inquir- 
ing, not only whether the text is opposed to Watson's po- 
sition, but also whether it supports the reviewer's posi- 
tion, v^^hich has nothing to do with the question as to what 
man is, or may be, geaciouslt ; nothing to do with the ques- 
tion as to what man knows, or may knoio, by supers at- 
UEAL ASSISTANCE, for, as we have shown in a former part 
of this defence, there can be no dispute with Watson on 
these points. The question is as to what man is and knows, 
naturally, necessarily, and universally, what he is " consti- 
tuted by the great Architect of his mental being," what he 
is, and knows, after and despite the fall, independent of the 
gracious or supernatural help. The reviewer says : " In- 
stead, then, of our knowledge of God resting upon revela- 
tion alone, we regard the idea of God as a phenomenon of 
the universal human intelligence. It is in all minds in 
which reason is in any considerable degree developed, and 
is there as a necessary truth." In support of this view he 
quotes the following words of McCosh : " The idea of 
God, the belief in God, may be justly represented as native 
to man." Nor is this all, for it is claimed that " we imme- 
diately apprehend the moral quality of actions. The mind 
intuitively apprehends them as right or wrong, and spon- 
taneously approves or condemns them." And "this dis- 
tinction in the quahty of moral actions is felt to be independ- 
ent of the mind which perceives it and of any mutable 



176 watson's theological lnstitutes 

condition of things. Good and evil, right and wrong, are 
immutdble. The distinction between them must be the 
same everywhere, at all times, and to all beings — ^to God, 
to angels, and to men. It is as impossible to conceive that 
there are intelligences to whom falsehood can appear a 
virtue, and justice a vice, as that there are intelligences to 
whom two and two equal five, or to whom the properties 
of the triangle can be more or less than they are to us. 
Accompanying this perception of the immutable distinction 
between virtue and vice, we have the consciousness of its 
being our duty to avoid the one and perform the other. 
We feel upon us an obligation which is imperative. We 
have also an abiding conviction that moral good is re- 
loardahUy and that vice merits punishment. And, final- 
ly, we have a conscious apprehension of a future retribu- 
tionP 

As we quoted much more of this kind formerly, this 
will sufiice for our present purpose. This is a specimen 
of what the reviewer calls " the science of natural theolo- 
gy," and which he says " is recognized by the master mind 
of Paul." The amount is, every child ofnian^ in every age 
and country^ loithout a single exception^ has a knowledge 
of God^ of moral good and evil, and of a future retribu- 
tion. And this knowledge is as natural^ and as inevitable^ 
as is our knowledge of obvious and unmistakable numbers ! 
Every man has the " abiding conviction " of all this ! And 
we are confidently assured that aU this is fully supported 
by the nineteenth and twentieth verses of the first chapter 
of Romans; though the apostle, in the following verses, 
speaks of certain " fools " who '' changed the glory of the 
uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible 
man, and to birds, and to fourfooted beasts, and creeping 
things." And he even tells us that they "changed the 



A^D THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 177 

truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the 
creature rather than the Creator." I do not see that 
these " fools " are any better than that other " fool " 
who, according to the psalmist, " said in his heart that 
there is no God : " nor are they much better who, when^ 
they " kill " God's people, " think that they do God ser- 
vice." Watson's reviewer, however, finds no such people 
in this or in any other age ; every individual of the human 
race, according to his* showing, is almost equal to an angel, 
if not entirely so ! We still believe, however, that the 
sacred writers have not misrepresented the children of men, 
and so long as we believe this we cannot possibly believe 
the above and similar teachings of the reviewer : for certain 
it is that the if/vxi-Kos avOpoiiros, the natural man, as described 
by the sacred writers, is the very reverse of the man de- 
scribed by the reviewer, as we have shown in a former part 
of this defence, and this showing we will support in due 
time by the facts, of human history. In the mean time, it is 
worthy of remark that while these teachers of natural the- 
ology represent the natural man as being almost, if not en- 
tirely, on a level with the angels, they, nevertheless, confi- 
dently assert that this same man cannot discover God in his 
own word, not, at least, till he first proves hia being and 
attributes from the facts of the material universe. The fact 
is, according to the showing of Watson's reviewer, the nat- 
ural man is a very wise man ; while, according to the show- 
ing of the sacred writers, he is a " fool," and in support of 
this painful conclusion they adduce the most terrible facts ; 
these facts, however, are all ignored, and, impliedly at least, 
denied by Watson's opponents. 

Although it is quite sufficient for our purpose to have 
shown, as Ave trust we have, that the text in question 
neither contradicts the teaching of Watson nor confirms 
8* 



178 WATSON'S THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 

that of his reviewer, yet we will endeavor to show what 
the text does teach. • 

Observe, then, the apostle is not speaking of the knowl- 
edge of the Gentiles at the time he wrote the passage under 

^consideration, but of their ignorance at that time, and for 
a long time previous. So ignorant were they that they 
substituted the creature for the Creator, and worshipped 
the former instead of the latter. Nor did they choose the 
most noble creatures. But, having worshipped " an image 
made like to corruptible man," they finally worship " birds, 
and four-footed beasts, and creeping things" — epTrcTwi/; 
"that is," say Bloomfield and others, "reptiles of every 
kind, not only serpents, but crocodiles and fishes." Such 
were some of the creatures which these blind, stupid, idol- 

. atrous Gentiles substituted for the living God. This last 
kind of idolatry mentioned was practised more especially 
in Egypt ; and this shows us that the apostle is here taking 
a view of the whole Gentile world, at that and every pre- 
vious period of its apostasy. 

But there was a time ^' when they knew God," — a 
time when " that which may be known of God " w^as ac- 
tually known in the Gentile world. But how was this 
made "manifest to them" originally? The apostle an- 
swers: "God hath showed it unto them." How did he 
show it unto them ? " By the light," says Mr. Wesley on 
the place, "which enlightens every man that cometh into 
the world." Observe, the knowledge of God, according to 
our apostle, was originally from God himself. " God hath 
showed it unto them." And it^ame, not in the natural 
order, but in the supernatural order ; it came through 
Jesus Christ, who " is the true light which lighteth every 
man that cometh into the world." So far all is clear, and so 
far natural theology has plainly no place in the teachings 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 179 

of the apostle. But this knowledge of God which, the 
Grentile world once had, and which they obtained in the 
way here specified, they lost ; and the apostle tells us how 
they lost it. " When they knew God, they glorified him 
not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their- 
imaginations, and their foohsh heart was darkened. Pro- 
fessing themselves to be cro^ot," that is, philosophers, as 
such men still. call themselves, "they became fools." * ^ * 
" And even as they did not like to retain God in their 
knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind 
[margin : a mind void of judgnaent], to do those things 
which are not convenient, being filled with all unrighteous- 
ness." Intellectually and morally, all was wrong. They 
were "void of judgment," "without understanding," 
" without natural afiection," and " filled with all unright- 
eousness." Emptied of all that is good, and filled with all 
that is bad, they were more vile than the reptiles which 
they worshipped ! Good God, what a picture ! And as 
though his inspiration were not a sufficient guarantee for 
its truthfulness, the apostle adduces facts as indisputable 
as they are shocking. Yet of these very same degraded 
creatures Watson's reviewer gives us a picture so lovely 
that the best man on earth need not be ashamed of it ! 
And he " can ill conceal " his " regrets because Watson 
degrades the reason ! " My dear sir, Watson never had 
the ability, even if he had the disposition, to give a more 
degrading picture of fallen man than that which Paul gives 
us in the above and other passages which we have quoted. 
So that if there is any 'cause for these regrets, it is Paul, 
not Watson, that must bear the blame. nd, even sup- 
pose neither Watson nor Paul had ever written a line on 
the subject, what then ? Still we have matter of fact 
staring us in the face ! ISTor will our regrets alter these 
facts in the least. 



180 



WATSON S THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 



But, for this ignorance, and all the other things here 
specified, the apostle says, " they are without excuse," not 
only because God revealed himself to man from the begin- 
ning, and *' sjDake to the fathers by the prophets," and 
"lighteth every man that conxeth into the world," but, 
also, because " the invisible things of him from the creation 
of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the 
things that are made, even his eternal power and god- 
head." To this and the preceding verse I find difierent 
critics give different renderings, at least to some of the 
words which we will notice. And this arises, doubtless, 
from the fact that these sentences are differently construct- 
ed in different Greek Testaments. In verse 19, some trans- 
late " to them," some " in them," some " among them," 
and some " in their hearts." " 'Ej/ avT0L<5, in them, says 
Olshausen, " refers to the internal nature of the knowledge 
of God." The same writer says : " The expressions yj/wcns, 
or eTTiyvwo-ts rov ©eov, Jcnowledge of God, denote, however, 
in the language of the 'New Testament, that absolute knowl- 
edge of God which is conveyed to man by means of the 
manifestation of God in Christ ; from which we may assume 
that the form to yi/oo-rov rov @€ov was purposely chosen by 
the apostle, in order to designate that lower degree of 
acquaintance with God, which was given to men on the 
footing of the Gentiles, and which was only gradually ob- 
scured by sin." In the 20th verse, the words, which are 
differently rendered, are ttoltjix and Ociot-y)^. This last word 
is translated godhead in the common version, but Bengel, 
Doddridge, Olshausen, and, I think, most critics, render 
this word dimnity / for in Col. ii, 9, the word translated 
godhead is different, being OeorrjTos. Doddridge observes 
that Augustine " nicely distinguishes " between these words, 
and seems to approve of the distinction made by that 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 181 

father. Olshausen translates, his eternal power and divin- 
ity , and says, " The ' eternal power ' is very definite and 
easy to understand." * * * * " On the other hand, the 
expression ^ctorr/s, is both striking and obscure, since ©eou 
is necessarily supplied. But doubtless the apostle, by this 
word, as above, by choosing yvwo-rov, intended to mark 
the incompleteness of their knowledge." Bengel, after de- 
fending the above translation of the word theiotes^ says, the 
invisible things of God would certainly become visible at 
the creation, if ever ; " and then, after some further remarks, 
adds : " So that the understanding of the fathers from the 
creation of the world may condemn the apostasy of the 
Gentiles." 

Dr. Bloomfield, in his Greek Testament with English 
notes, translates the words tols TroLrjjxaa-i voovfxcva, "being 
comprehended by the things which he hath created and 
ordered," and adds, " for we may extend ttoltjix, withKypke, 
to the operations of God's providence as well as to crea- 
tion." I do not see, however, where the doctor gets the 
word created, for certainly the word iKTLo-ev is not here in 
any of its forms. As to the word ttoit^/x, in its different 
forms it has very many different shades of meaning. For 
instance, in Matt, xii, 33, its meaning, as given in Green- 
field's Greek Lexicon, is, " to bring to pass, cause to take 
place, do, accomplish," &g. Understanding the words thus, 
the apostle's meaning would be : Jlis eternal poioer and di- 
vinity are clearly seen, being understood* by the things 
which he has brought to pass, accomplished, caused to take 
place. This would comprehend the whole work of Provi- 
dence, including miracles, the fulfilment of prophecies, 
threatenings, promises, and answers to prayer. And this 
he certainly has been accomplishing and bringing to pass 
" from the creation of the world." And this agrees perfect- 



182 Watson's theological ikstitutes 

ly with wliat our apostle says elsewhere, when he specifies 
some of "the things" comprehended in the term under 
consideration. For instance, when preaching at Lystra, he 
says, " We also are men of like passions with you, and 
preach unto you, that ye should turn from these vanities 
unto the living God, w^hich made heaven, and earth, "and 
the sea, and all things that are therein ; who in times past 
suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. IS'everthe- 
less he left not himself without witness, in that he did 
good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, 
filling our hearts with food and gladness." Such are some 
of "the things" which are God's icitnesses, and which left 
the heathen " without excuse," even when " He suffered 
all nations to walk in their own ways." Xor were these 
and similar gracious providences God's only witnesses 
among the heathen, for he wrought his miracles and won- 
ders in all'the ancient Gentile nations — not only '' in the 
land of Ham," but in the midst of the ancient Assyrians 
and Chaldeans, especially in Babylon and Nineveh, and, in 
short, in all the ancient nations, whether antediluvian or 
postdiluvian. ISTor was this all, for he taught them his 
worship also. Hence we find the practice of offering sacri- 
fice existing in all those ancient nations, yea, and of making 
formal prayer to God ; and this knowledge they could not 
possibly derive from the works of either creation or provi- 
dence, but must have had it directly from God himself 
And this, the \ford of God assures us, was the fact. When 
Abraham first " sojourned in Gerar," he tells us he 
" thought surely the fear of God is not in this place," but 
he was mistaken. We are told "God came to Abimelech 
in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but 
a dead man, for the woman Avhich thou hast taken ; for she 
is a man's wife." .... " Now, therefore, restore the man 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 183 

his wife ; for he is a prophet, and he shall peay for thee, 
and thou shalt live : and if thou restore her not, know thou 
that thou shalt surely die, thou and all that are thine." 
. . . . " So Abraham prayed unto God: and God healed 
Abimelech, and his wife and his maid servants." Here let it 
be noticed, that this king receives instruction from the lips 
of the Most High on the subject of pkayee, and on the 
other points specified in this history, that the whole comes 
as a law accompanied by its appropriate sanctions, that the 
king converses with God, calls him by his peculiar name 
Jehovah, appeals to him as the searcher of hearts, and 
receives this answer in reply : " I know that thou didst this 
in the integrity of thy heart ; " and, finally, he gives evi- 
dence that he is acquainted with this God, and that he is 
familiar with such communications from him. (Genesis xx.) 
We find, too, that Job and his friends received direct iii- 
struction from the Loed on the subject of prayer^ and on 
many other subjects. "Then the Loed answered Job out 
of the whirlwind, and said," &c. " And it was so, that after 
the LoED had spoken these words unto Job, the Loed said 
to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, 
and against thy two friends : for ye have not spoken of me 
the thing that is right as my servant Job hath. Therefore 
take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go 
to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt of- 
fering ; and my servant Job shall peat for you : for him 
will I accept ; lest I deal with you after your folly." Here 
these men receive instruction directly from the mouth of 
the Loed on the two great subjects, sacrifice s^nd prayer. 
Other quotations might be given, but these will sufiice to 
show that God did not leave the ancient nations of the earth 
to derive a knowledge of his being and worship from the 
material universe, that instruction by direct revelation was 



184 watson's theological institutes 

not confined to Abraham and his posterity, that the advo- 
cates of natural theology have no right to assume that the 
human race was ever destitute of instruction by direct 
revelation from God. And we think it is highly presum- 
able, were there no other evidence, that the revelations and 
supernatural phenomena recorded in the scriptures which 
we have quoted, and in others which might be quoted, are 
included by the apostle in " the things " which he declares 
to be God's witnesses, and which, in the scripture under 
consideration, he says left the Gentiles " without excuse " 
for their idolatry. If this be not the case, then the term 
'TTOirjix, or TTOLrjixaa-L, in which he comprehends " the things" 
of which he speaks, must only mean the material universe, 
the works of creation. But in that case he would leave out 
the principal witnesses, i. e., all the miracles, fulfilled proph- 
ecy, fulfilled threatenings, and answers to prayer, and all 
those gracious providences which he elsewhere declares to 
be witnesses, and which we know God claims to be his 
witnesses, among the Gentiles as well as among the Jews. 
Moreover, if by " the things " which left the idolatrous 
Gentiles " without excuse," the apostle meant created 
things, why did he not use the word appropriate in that 
case, as he has done in the former part of the verso when 
speaking of " the creation " ? There he uses the word 
KTto-ecos, here the word Troti^/xao-i. It is perfectly true that 
" the heavens declare the glory of God," and so it is written. 
As these shining worlds sweep through the fields of space 
all around us, they " declare the glory " of that God, that 
very God, made known to us hy revelation : that is far more 
than to say, " the heavens prove the being of a First Cause ; " 
a Gentile philosopher might say that much, though, as we 
shall show, those philosophers were very slow to learn even 
that much : they talked, it is true, freely enough about an 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 185 

eternal power, but they recognized that power as belong- 
ing to matter, and as being too strong even for the gods ; 
and both the matter arid its power they declared to be 
eternal. But without a revelation no man ever said, no 
man ever could have said, " The heavens declare the glory 
of Elohim," for without a revelation that name never had 
been known ! Hence this scripture is so far from proving 
what is claimed by Watson's opponents, that it proves just 
the reverse ! It proves indisputably, that this is the utterance 
of one of those to whom the Great First Cause has revealed 
himself by ISTame, and that INTame is Elohim, is Jehovah, 
and the Name itself speaks volumes ! Moreover, the author 
of this utterance speaks of " the law of Jehovah," which he 
declares to be " perfect," and which also is a revelation from 
this same Loed God, and could not possibly have been 
known but by revelation. Seeing, then, that " the heavens 
declare the glory of Elohim " to none but those who have 
an authenticated revelation from Elohim, it follows that 
this declaration cannot prove the knowledge of those who 
have no revelation ; but this is the very thing assumed by 
the advocates of natural theology. Finally: creation^ 
revelation^ and the supernatural phenomena which we have 
specified, hear a united testimony to the fact, that Jehovah 
is the author of all, a7id that beside him there is no God ! 
These three teachers distinctly and unitedly speak thus : 
revelation makes known ; and the supernatural phenomena 
prove revelation to he what it professes to he y while the 
magnificent works of creation hear a testimony that con- 
stantly illustrates and corroborates the whole ! 

In closing our remarks upon the text in Romans, we 
cannot withhold from the reader Mr. Watson's views of that 
scripture, as given in his " Exposition." See the place. 

" Human reason was never left to acquire, for the first 



186 Watson's theological institutes 

time, the knowledge of the existence of God from his 
works ; but that doctrine being ah'eady in the world, the 
works of God made their constant appeal to the reason of 
man, presented to it an evidence of the most convincing 
kind, and opened courses of ennobling and sanctifying 
thought which, if they had taken the least delight in thf|p, 
would have preserved men from all the degrading polythe- 
ism which followed." On the 20th verse he says : " Some 
include in the ra TrotT^/xara all the operations of God in his 
moral government, and the previous dispensation of grace ; 
and it is certain that the word used is wide enough in its 
meaning to comprehend them. The argument, however, 
rather binds us to take it in its stricter sense of the creation 
and preservation of those things which are visible in the 
frame and constitution of the world. But it by no means 
follows from this, that the apostle intended to teach that the 
principles of God's moral government, his will, and our du- 
ties and hopes, in a word, all that has been termed natural 
religion, is to be learned by the study of physics, and that 
the A'isible world is a sufficient book for man. The apostle 
knew well that both among Gentiles and Jews, from the 
earliest ages, there had been communications of moral 
truth in direct revelations, and traditions of those revela- 
tions ; that the world had never been without moral laws, 
or without promises of redemption ; and what he knew to 
be fact, universally acknowledged by those to whom he 
writes, he assumes ; and considers, therefore, that what 
proves the existence of that God, made known, as to his 
will and designs, in these early and widely diffused revela- 
tions, gave authority also to all the truth which had ever 
been copnected with the doctrine. He assumes, in fact, 
what we see assumed throughout the Scriptures, that God 
communicated the knowledge of himself and his will origi- 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 187 

nally to mankind ; that this knowledge, though disregard- 
ed and darkened, was never wholly lost ; that the visible 
creation was a standing testimony to it as existing, not the 
means of first revealing it, nor of recovering it through a 
process of reasoning, if, in any instance, entirely lost." 
Matk, Watson says, and understands Paul to say, that " the 
visible creation was a standing testimony to " what God had 
revealed. On the other hand, the advocates of natural theol- 
ogy claim that the visible creation reveals^ as well as testifies 
to, " all that has been termed natural religion." In the one 
case, the natural is represented as bearing witness to the 
supernatural; in the other all is natural^ and the supernat- 
ural is excluded. That is the difference. 



188 WATSON's theological INSTmJTEB 



CHAPTEE YI. 

To the teachings of Watson's reviewer, as to what man 
is naturally^ inevitably^ and universally, we will now oppose 
the facts of human history. 

In an article published in " The Methodist Magazine and 
Quarterly Review," for January, 1838, entitled "Observa- 
tions on Watson's Theological Institutes," by W. M. B., we 
have the following remarks : " The first particular, perhaps, 
which will strike the thoughtful reader as he proceeds, is 
the strange fatuity with which philosophers and theologi- 
ans of old sought to develop the idea of God from the 
elements of human reason. As if the reality of divine rev- 
elation must be established by proving it unnecessary ; as 
though it were to be demonstrated that God had revealed 
himself, by showing that we could have discovered him 
. without revelation. First, in order of these attempts, came 
the doctrine of innate ideas ; and the defender of divine 
truth asserted that the idea of God is congenital to the 
mind of man, and cannot be shaken ofi*. Thus it was to be 
proved that the Scriptures revealed a high and important 
truth, in that they proclaimed to us a doctrine which we 
could not, from our very constitution, fail to know. But 
stubborn fact annihilated the chimera. Men were found 
who had no such idea, and the doctrine disappeared. Next 



AJiTD THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 189 

appeared the baptized believers in natural religion. These 
did not maintain that the idea of God was born with ns, 
but that the capacities born within us could, at the least, find 
a God in the things without us. Fact and reason, however, 
both overthrew the notion. For the fact, the idea never 
was discovered by man. For the reason, it does not ap- 
pear that, without religion, the mind of man could, by any 
means, be brought to such a degree of elevation as even to 
entertain the question. The reasoning of Mr. Watson on 
this point is quite satisfactory." The reader will observe 
that where W. M. B. finds Watson " quite satisfactory," 
just there it is that Mr. C. finds the error that "landed, as 
indeed it must inevitably land, in pure materiaHsm." It is 
a mistake, however, to suppose that " the strange fatuity, 
the chimera, of philosophers and theologians of old," and 
of " baptized believers," has " disappeared ; " or, if it had 
disappeared, it certainly has appeared again, and again it 
must be opposed, if not " annihilated," by " stubborn fact j " 
for nothing but " stubborn fact," it seems, will drive " bap- 
tized believers " from this strange fatuity," this marvellous 
" chimera." 

In evidence of the innate ideas, the natural theology, oi 
the ancient Egyptians, we will give a single quotation from 
the satirist Juvenal, as some will believe him sooner than 
Paul: 

Who has not heard, where Egypt's realms are named, 
What monster gods her fertile sons have framed ? 
Her Ibis, gorged with well-grown serpents, there 
The crocodile commands religious fear ; 
Where Memnon's statue magic springs inspire 
With vocal sounds that emulate the lyre ; 
And Thebes — such, fate, are thy disastrous turns — 
Now prostrate o'er her pompous ruins mourns ; 



190 watson's theological institutes 

A monkey god, prodigious to behold ! 
Strikes the beholder's eye with burnish'd gold : 
To godship here blue Triton's scaly herd, 
The river progeny is there preferr'd ; 
Through towns Diana's power neglected lies, 
Where to her dogs aspiring temples rise : 
And should you leeks or onions eat, no time 
Would expiate the sacrilegious crime. 
Religious nations, sure, and bless'd abodes, 
Where every orchard is o'errun with gods. 

This " natural religion " of the Egyptians was a little 
too bad even for Juvenal, immoral and sceptical as he was. 

The Carthaginians, Tyrians, Phcenicians, Philistines, 
and Canaanites were little, if anything, better than the 
Egyptians. Hercules, the Moon, and Saturn seem to have 
been the principal deities of the Carthaginians ; it was to 
the latter they oifered human sacrifices, which were com- 
mon among them. It is this probably that gave rise to the 
fable of Saturn's having devoured his own children. The 
idolatrous practices of the other nations mentioned above 
being specified in Scripture, it is not necessary to mention 
them here. Tertullian says that children were sacrificed to 
Saturn, or Moloch, down to the proconsulship of Tiberius, 
who hanged the sacrificing priests themselves upon the 
trees which shaded their temple. Diodorus says that 
"when Agathocles was going to besiege Carthage, the 
people, seeing the extremity to which they were reduced, 
imputed all their misfortune to the anger of their god, 
Saturn, because that, instead of offering up to him children 
nobly born, he had been fraudulently put off with the chil- 
dren of slaves and foreigners. To atone for this, and ap- 
pease the anger of this god, two hundred children of the 
best families in Carthage were offered in sacrifice on this 
occasion, and as many as three hundred of the citizens vol- 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 191 

untarily went into the iire and sacrificed themselves with- 
out compulsion." 

It is well known that the Assyrians and Chaldeans were 
gross idolaters. The following from Eusebius will convey 
an idea of their " intuitions of pure reason " : " Ur, which 
signifies fire, was the idol they worshipped, and, as fire will, 
in general, consume everything thrown into it, so the As- 
syrians published abroad that the gods of other nations 
could not stand before theirs. Many experiments were 
tried, and vast numbers of idols were brought from other 
parts, but they being of wood, the all-devouring god Ur, 
or fire, consumed them. At last an Egyptian priest found 
out the art to destroy the reputation of this mighty idol, 
which had so long been the terror of distant nations. He 
caused the figure of an idol to be made of porous earth, 
and the belly of it was filled with water. On each side of 
the belly holes were made, but filled up with wax. This 
being done, he challenged the god Ur to oppose his god 
Canopus, which was accepted of by the Chaldean priests ; 
but no sooner did the wax which stopped up the holes in 
the belly of Canopus begin to melt than the water burst 
out and drowned the fire." Adramelech was another god 
of the Assyrians ; Nisroch, too, was in high repute among 
them, especially at Kineveh. Milton, who very properly 
recognized idols as the mere representatives of devils, 
speaks of this idol, or rather of the demon which it repre- 
sented, thus: 

In the assembly next upstood 

Nisroch, of principalities the prince. 

Both the Assyrians and Chaldeans sacrificed their chil- 
dren to their idols. In the province of Sepharvaim the 
people are said to have been " most horrid and barbarous 
idolaters." 



192 watson's theological ln-stitutes 

Of the Medes and Persians we are told that, " In con- 
sequence of the veneration they paid the sun, they wor- 
shipped fire, and invoked it in all their sacrifices. But 
their adoration was not confined to the sun ; they worship- 
ped the water, the earth, and the winds as so many deities. 
Human sacrifices were ofiered by them, and they burnt 
their children in fiery furnaces appropriated to their idols." 
Two notable gods among them were Arimanius and Oro- 
masdes. " Some ancient writers have given us a very odd 
account of this god Arimanius, which may serve to point 
out their ignorance of divine things. Oromasdes, say they, 
considering that he was alone, said to himself, If I have no 
one to oppose me, where then is all my glory? This sin- 
gle reflection of his created Arimanius, who, by his ever- 
lasting opposition to the will of Oromasdes, contributed to 
the glory of the latter. "We are told by Plutarch 'that 
Oromasdes created seven inferior gods, or genii, such as 
wisdom, goodness, justice, truth, the comforts of life, and 
all lawful enjoyments. On the other hand, Arimanius 
created as many devils, such as lies, wickedness, and all 
sorts of abominations. The former likewise created twenty- 
four devils, and enclosed them in an egg ; the latter broke 
the egg^ and by that means created a mixture of good and 
evil." Thus it was that " the intuitions of pure reason " 
perverted the Scripture account of the creation and fall of 
angels and men. Nor do we find that the heathens of 
more modern times are any better ; in the writings of some 
of the nations, or tribes, within the bounds of the great 
Mogul Empire, we are told that " in the beginning God 
created a woman, whose name was Paraxacti, which signi- 
fied sublime power, and this woman had three sons, the 
first of whom was born with five heads, and was called 
* Bruma,' which signifies knowledge, and he was endued 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 193 

with the power of creating all inferior beings. The name 
of the second son was Vixnu, and he was to be the lord of 
providence, by preserving all things as they came from the 
hands of ' Bruma.' The third son was named Rutrem, and 
he had power given him to destroy all things which his other 
two brothers had made and preserved. This Rutrem, like 
his brother Bruma, had five heads, and the three brothers 
agreed to marry their mother,"the result of which was 
another monster progeny, and all gods, of course, having 
splendid temples built for them, and in which they are wor- 
shipped according to "the intuitions of pure reason." 
These gods, according to the showing of their worshippers, 
continued to increase ; but they are such monsters, and 
their history so absurd and so vile, that we must not quote 
further. See Bishop Kurd's "History of Religions," to 
which we are indebted for the above quotations. 

The following extracts are from a tract published by the 
M. E. Church, and entitled " A Catechism for the Deist : " 
" The inhabitants of Ceylon worship devils." " When the 
missionaries landed in Bengal in the year 1793 they found 
the inhabitants sunk in the grossest idolatry, acknowledg- 
ing, at least, three hundred and thirty millions of gods. 
What was the nature of their worship at that time ? It 
was blind adoration of a senseless idol ; devotion to a mon- 
key, a sferpent, or a log| of wood, mixed with many acts of 
impurity. What ideas had they of futurity ? Nothing 
more than eternal transmigration, or absorption into the 
soul of the universe. They believed that when a man died 
he rose again either in the form of a cat, or a dog, or a 
worm, or some other reptile." Rev. Mr. Ward, who has 
been a long time a missionary in India, says : " I have never 
known one man among them, previously to his conversion 
to Christianity, who appeared to fear God and work right- 
9 



194: WATSON's theological INSTrrUTES 

eousness. The impurity of their conversation is beyond 
all description. They are finished adepts in the art of de- 
ception. For slander and abuse they stand unrivalled, even 
among the most degraded of mankind ! What is the prac- 
tice of heathen mothers in India respecting their children ? 
When the first-born is two or three years old, the mother 
takes it to the river, encourages it to walk in the stream, 
and then abandons it to the cruelty of the terrible alligator : 
this she does in hopes of having a numerous offspring. " 
Such are some of the " deductions from the mind's own 
first principles," some of those " primary judgments " of 
which our transcendental philosophers speak ! To those 
who have such exalted views of the natural man and of 
natural religion^ we would recommend a careful perusal of 
this little tract, also of what Mr. Wesley says on the same 
subject in vol. v of his Miscellaneous Works, p. 496, &c. 
A few short quotations just here may be useful. 

" Shall we turn our eyes for a moment from the scrip- 
tural to the profane account of mankind in the earliest 
ages ? What was the general sentiment of the most polite 
and knowing nation, the Romans, when their learning was 
in its utmost perfection ? Let one, who certainly was no 
bigot or enthusiast, speak for the rest. And he speaks 
home to the point : 

* Full many a war has been for wwnen waged 
Ere half the world in Helen's cause engaged ; 
^ But, unrecorded in historic verse, 

Obscurely died those savage ravishers, 
Who like brute beasts the female bore away, 
Till some superior brute re-seized the prey : 
As a wild bull, his rival bull o'erthrown, 
Claims the whole subject herd, and reigns alone.' 

I doubt he who gives this, not as his peculiar opinion, but 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 195 

as what was then a generally received notion, would scarce 
have allowed even as much as Juvenal : 

' Chastity did once, I grant, remain 
On earth, and flourish'd in old Saturn's reign ; ' 

unless one should suppose the reign of Saturn to have ex- 
pired when Adam was driven out of paradise. I cannot 
forbear adding another picture ' of the ancient dignity of 
human nature, drawn by the same masterly hand. Before 
men dwelt in cities, he says : 

' The human herd, unbroken and untaught, 
For acorns first, and grassy couches fought ; 
With fists, and then with clubs maintained the fray, 
Till, urged by hate, they found a quicker way. 
And forged pernicious arms, and learn'd the art to slay.' 

What a difference there is between this and the gay, florid 
accounts which many moderns give of their own species ! " 
And, we may add, what a difference between this and the 
accounts given by Watson's reviewers ! 

As the teachings which called forth this defence are a 
mere revival of those opposed by Wesley and Watson, in 
their day, we must beg leave to give yet another quotation 
from the former ; we take it from page 503 : 

" Would we know, then, what manner of men the hea- 
thens in Africa were two or three thousand years ago ? 
Inquire what they are now, who are genuine pagans still, not 
tainted with either Mohammedanism or Christianity. They 
are to be found in abundance either in IsTegroland or round 
the Cape of Good Hope. Now what measure of knowl- 
edge have the natives of either of these countries ? I do. 
not say in metaphysics, mathematics, or astronomy. Of 
these it is plain they know just as much as their four-footed 
brethren ; the lion and the man are equally accomplished 



196 watson's theological institutes 

with regard to this knowledge. I will not ask what they 
know of the nature of government, of the respective rights 
of kings and various orders of subjects : in this regard, a 
herd of men are manifestly inferior to a herd of elephants. 
But let ns view them with respect to common life. What 
do they know of the things they continually stand in need 
of ? How do they build habitations for themselves and 
their families ; how select and prepare their food ; clothe 
and adorn their persons ? As to their habitations, it is 
certain, I will not say our horses (particularly those belong- 
ing to the nobility and gentry), but an English peasant's 
dogs, nay, his very swine, are more commodiously lodged ; 
and as to their food, apparel, and ornaments, they are just 
suitable to their edifices : 

Your nicer Hottentots think meet 
With guts and tripe to deck their feet ; 
With downcast eyes on Totta's legs, 
The love-sick youth most humbly begs, 
She would not from his sight remove 
At once his" breakfast and his love. 

Such is the knowledge of these accomplished animals, in 
things which cannot but daily employ their thoughts ; and 
wherein, consequently, they cannot avoid exerting, to the 
uttermost, both their natural and acquired understanding." 
Once more : speaking of the glowing representations 
which some have given of the Chinese, and of their own 
high opinion of themselves, as expressed in the following 
proverb : " The Chinese have two eyes, the Europeans one, 
and other men none at all," and after giving evidence of 
the ignorance and degradation of the masses, he says, page 
506 : " But in order to see the true measure of their un- 
derstanding in the clearest light, let us look, not at women, 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 197 

or the vulgar, but at the nobility, the wisest, the politest 
part of the nation. Look at the mandarins, the glory of 
the empire, and see any, every one of them at his meals, 
not deigning to use his own hands, but having his meat 
put into his mouth by two servants, planted for that pur- 
pose, one on his right hand, the other on his left ! Oh, the 
deep understanding of the noble lubber that sits in the 
midst, and 

* Gapes, as the young swallow, for his food.' 

Surely an English ploughman, or a Dutch sailor, would 
have too much sense to endure it. If you say, ' Nay, the 
mandarin would not endure it, but that it is a custom y ' 
I answer, undoubtedly it is ; but how came it to be a cus- 
tom ? Such a custom could not have begun, much less 
have become general, but through a general and marvel- 
lous want of common sense." 

Such are some of the facts of human history, as to 
whole nations, both ancient and modern ; and facts much 
"worse than any we have mentioned have been omitted, be- 
cause too bad to mention ; nor would we have copied some 
of the above testimonies were it not that we considered it 
necessary in view of the confident assertions we design to 
refute. Presuming that the reader is satisfied with, as well 
as sick of, the dark picture here given, we will now turn 
from nations to individuals ; nor will we select the most ig- 
norant and degraded, but the brightest luminaries of the 
ancient heathen nations, especially those of Greece and 
Rome, and that in their palmiest days. Watson has ad- 
duced numerous testimonies for the same purpose, but we 
choose to quote from other sources, and thereby increase 
the evidence. 

The following quotations are from Grotius on " The 
Truth of the Chi-istian Religion." 



198 watson's theological institutes 

Aristotle, it is well known, asserted the eternity of the 
world, both in matter and form ; yet he says, very candid- 
ly : '' There are some questions against which very good 
arguments may be brought ; it being very doubtful which 
side is in the right, there being great probability on either 
hand, we have no certainty of them. And though they be 
of great weight, w^e find it very difficult to determine the 
case and manner of their existence. As, for instance, 
whether the world were from eternity or no ; for such 
things are disputed." Speaking of the generation of ani- 
mals he uses these words : " It would not be a foolish con- 
jecture concerning the first rise of men and beasts, if any 
one should imagine that of old they sprung out of the earth 
in one of these two ways : either after the manner of mag- 
gots, or to have come from eggs." Finally, after w^eighing 
the prob^Jbilities for and against each of these conjectures, 
he concludes thus : " If therefore animals had any begin- 
ning, it is manifest, it must be in one of these two ways." 
Such are " the primitive judgments " of this philosopher. 
He was not sure whether "animals had any beginning," 
but if they had, "it must be after the manner of maggots, 
or from eggs ! " 

Diodorus Siculus, after supporting the maggot theory 
at great length, thus concludes: "Now the earth being 
very much dried and hardened, by the heat of the sun, and 
by the wind, was no longer able to bring forth living 
creatures, but they were afterward begotten by mixing 
with each other." "Euripides" says Grotius, "seems not 
to contradict this account, for he says in his Menalippe : 

* Heaven and earth at first were of one form, 
But when their different part3 were separate, 
Thence sprung beasts, fowls, and all the shoals of fish, 
Nay, even men themselves.' 



•■ AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 199 

This, therefore, is the account we have received of the 
original of all things. And if it should seem, strange to any- 
one, that the egrth should in the beginning have a power 
to bring forth living creatures, it may be further confirmed 
by what we see comes to pass even now. For at Thebais, 
ia Egypt, upon the river Nile's very much overflowing his 
banks, and thereby moistening the ground, immediately by 
the heat of the sun is caused a putrefaction, out of which 
arises an incredible number of mice. IsTow, if after the 
earth has been thus hardened, and the air does not preserve 
its Original temperature, yet some animals are, notwith- 
standing, produced from hence, it is manifest that in the 
beginning all sorts of living creatures were produced out of 
the earth in this manner ! " According to the " intuitions " 
of this philosopher men and 'mice had the same origin ! 
And so had all " living creatures ; " they were produced 
from Tnarshy and putrid places, by the heat of the sun, 
and after the earth became too hard and dry for such 
purposes, " they were afterward begotten by mixing with 
each other." These philosophers preferred this to the Q^g 
theory, doubtless for this obvious reason : they could not 
tell where the egg came from ! For the same reason it is, 
no doubt, that Aristotle does not say a word about the 
origin of the egg ; that was too much for his " primitive 
judgments." The gods, too, it would seem, they supposed 
to have originated in the same way, for in the hymns 
ascribed to Orpheus, it is said : 

*' All things that are, sprung from chaos vast." 

The same sentiment is thus expressed by Ej^icharmus : 

" 'Tis said that chaos was before the gods." 

" And Aristophanes," says Grotius, " in his play called^ 
the Birds, in a passage preserved from Lucian, in his Phi- 



200 watson's theological institutes • 

lopatris^'' thus accounts for the origin of gods, men, and all 
animals : 

" First of all was chaos and night, dark Erebus and gloomy Tartarus ; 
There was no earth, nor air, nor heaven, till dusky night, 
By the wind's power on the wide bosom of Erebus, brought forth an 

egg, 

Of which was hatched the god of love (when time began), who with 
his golden wings 

Fixed to his shoulders, flew like a mighty whirlwind, and mixing with 
black chaos. 

In Tartarus' dark shades, produced mankind, and brought them into 
light. 

For, before love joined all things, the gods themselves had no exist- 
ence; 

But upon this conjunction, all things being mixed and blended, aether 
arose. 

And sea and earth, and blessed abodes of immortal gods." 

"These," adds Grotius, "appear, upon a very slight 
view, to be taken from the tradition of the Phoenicians, 
who held an ancient correspondence with the inhabitants 
of Attica, the most ancient of the lonians." We have the 
same sentiment expressed in the following words, quoted 
from Parmenides : 

" Love was the first of all the gods." 

Orpheus, too, in his hymn to night, says : 

" I sing the night, parent of men and gods." 

And Zeno, too, who- was a Phoenician, gives us his%iews in 
the following words : " The chaos in Hesiod is water, of 
which all things were made ; the water subsiding made 
mud, and the mud congealing made solid earth." 

Thus it is that those great men, the brightest lights of 
Jthe ancient heathen nations, attempted to account for " the 
origin of all things." Some commence with water, some 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 201 

with putrid mud, and some with an egg / but where the 
water, the mud, or the egg came from, they do not at- 
tempt to tell, except Aristophanes, who tells ns that the 
" egg was brought forth by the wind's power on the wide 
bosom of Erebus," and of this Qgg, whose mother was Ere- 
bus, or dusky night, and whose father was the wind, " was 
hatched the god of love." Whether this attempt to account 
for the origin of the egg was better than no attempt at all 
we leave the reader to decide ; only, we must not lose 
sight of the fact, that " the primitive judgments" of these 
sapient ones, give a common origin to maggots^ mice^ men^ 
and gods ! Nor let it be supposed that these are the mere 
flights of poetic minds, or the mere whims of certain eccen- 
tric philosophers ; for the best schools of antiquity, the 
schools of the philosophers, have done no better. Dr. 
Thomas Burnet, as quoted by Watson, says : " The Ionic, 
Pythagoric, Platonic, and Stoic schools, all agreed in assert- 
ing the eternity of matter, and that the doctrine that 
matter was created out of nothing seems to have been 
unknown to the philosophers, and is one of which they had 
no notion." Dr. Doddridge, too, speaking of the Epicu- 
reans and Stoics, says ; " But I think Dr. Benson has ex- 
pressed himself, on the whole, in a very impartial and judi- 
cious, as well as comprehensive, m^anner, when he tells us, 
* They held that matter was eternal, god corporeal,' that 
is, a fiery substance, * and they,' generally, ' looked upon 
all tilings as subject to an irresistible fatality, and that 
virtue was its own sufficient reward. And they fluctu- 
ated exceedingly as to their belief of future rewards and 
punishments, though they had some expectations of a future 
state, as well as of the conflagration and renovation of the 
world ; » with relation to which, several of them seem to- 
have ex]3ected a continual revolution of exactly similar 
9* 



202 watson's theological institutes 

events at equally distant periods of time. The attentive 
reader will easily see how opposite the genius of each of 
these sects was to the pure and humble spirit of Christi- 
anity, and how happily the apostle levels his incomparable 
discourse at some of the most distinguishing and import- 
ant errors of each." See the doctor's notes on Acts xvii, 
18. If will be seen that Doddridge observes, very prop- 
erly, not only that the teachings of those philosophers were 
deficient, but that they were directly " opposite " to those 
of the inspired writers. They were not only ignorant of 
God and of themselves, but when Paul proclaimed to them 
the truth in each case, they treated it with contempt, and 
called him a hahhler^ or, a base fellow^ as it is in the mar- 
gin. N"o wonder that the city of Athens, under the teach- 
ing of such philosophers, was " w^holly given to idolatry," 
or, as it is in the margin, " full of idols." It is only neces- 
sary to observe, that the silly accounts given by those dif- 
ferent philosophers, of " the origin of all things," are only 
so many perversions of the history of the creation and for- 
mation of the Avorld, as given in the first chapter of Genesis, 
especially of the second verse. And all this goes to shov/ 
that the light of revelation had reached them, but they 
had closed their eyes to it, and perverted its teachings, as 
"Watson shoAVS. 

Speaking of the facts, that the light of revelation had 
reached the heathen, and that they had perverted the 
teachings of revelation, Grotius says, " Which of the poets is 
it in which we do not find mention made of the attempt to 
climb the heavens?" And speaking of Ham, the second 
son of Koah, he says, " This person is transformed, not only 
by the Libyans, but also by many other nations, into the 
star Jupiter, as a god." In proof of this he gives the fol- 
lowuig quotation from Lucan, book ix: 



AND THE BEBLE DEFENDED. 203 

" Jupiter Ammon is the only god 
Amongst the happy Arabs, and amongst 
The Indians and Ethiopians." 

Le Clerc, too, gives us a pei-verted account of the deluge 
from Abydenus' history of Assyria, as quoted by Eusebius. 
Many similar accounts of the deluge are furnished by Gro- 
tius, from Berosus, Plutarch, Lucian, and others. He also 
says : " The history of Jonah's being three days in the 
whale's belly is in Lycoj^hron and Eneas Gazeus, only under 
the name of Hercules ; to advance whose fame everything 
that was great and noble used to be related of him, as 
Tacitus observes." Calmet says : " Many of the ancient 
fathers maintain, that the ancient heathen philosophers had 
nothing valuable but what they borrowed from the He- 
brews; that they had drawn from the fountain of the 
prophets; that by the subtile artifice of the devil, some 
principles of truth slipped into theu' writings, in order to 
undermine the truth at such time as God should manifest it 
to the world. Eusebius has devoted two entire books (lib. 
xi, xii) of his great work of the Gospel Preparation, to show 
that Plato had taken the principal things of his philosophy 
and theology from the sacred books of the Jews." " Por- 
phyry," says Le Clerc, " acknowledges that Plato took 
many things from the Hebrews, as Theodoret observes in 
his first discour-se against the Greeks." Josephus, in what 
is called his first book against Apion, when speaking of the 
ancient philosophers and teachers among the heathen being 
acquainted with the teachings of the sacred writers, says of 
Pythagoras, that " it is plain that he did not only know our 
doctrines but was in a very great measure a follower and 
admirer of them ; " and as on£ proof of this he gives the 
following quotation from Hermippus,'who wrote the his- 
tory of Pythagoras : " This he did and said in imitation of 



204 watson's theological institutes 

the doctrines of the Jews and Thracians, which he transfer- 
red into his own philosophy." To this declaration of Her- 
mippus Josephus adds : " for it is very truly affirmed of this 
Pythagoras, that he took a great many of the laws of the 
Jews into his own philosophy." And after giving numerous 
instances of a similar kind he sums up thus toward the 
close of his second book against Apion : " "We have already 
demonstrated that our laws have been such as have always 
inspired admiration and imitation into all other men ; nay, 
the earliest Grecian philosophers, though in appearance 
they observed the' laws of their own countries, yet did they, 
in their actions and philosophic doctrines, follow our legis- 
lator." And a little after he adds: " Our law hath no bait 
of pleasure to allure men to it, but it prevails by its own 
force ; and as God himself pervades all the world, so hath 
our law passed through all the world also." Clearchus, 
too, the scholar of Aristotle, acknowledges the indebted- 
ness of his master to the Jews for much of his knowledge, 
and gives us, in what he says are Aristotle's own words, a 
conversation which his master had with a learned Jew. 
He represents Aristotle as saying : " Now, for a great part 
of what this Jew said, it would be too long to recite it ; 
but what includes in it both wonder and philosophy, it may 
not be amiss to discourse of" Clearchus finally closes with 
these words : " but as he [the Jew] had lived with many 
learned men, he communicated to us more information than 
he received from us." What this Jew communicated to 
Aristotle had in it, says -that philosopher, "both wonder 
and philosophy." See this account as given by Josephus in 
the first book of his " Antiquity of the Jews," from which 
many more quotations might be given to show that what 
is valuable in the teachings of those philosophers, at least in 
matters of religion, they had from the Jews directly, or in- 



AlfD THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 205 

directly through the Chaldeans and others, as Mr. Watson 
observes, and this is still further confirmed by Josephus, 
who, when speaking of the Greeks, says : " Those who first 
introduced philosophy and the consideration of things celes- 
tial and divine among them, such as Pherecydes the Syrian, 
and Pythagoras, and Thales, all with one consent agree that 
they learned what they knew of the Egyptians and Chal- 
deans," who had their knowledge of divine things from the 
Jews. 

But these philosophers, as Mr. Watson observes, and as 
Josephus proves, seldom acknowledged their indebtedness 
to revelation, or preserved in its purity the knowledge 
which they obtained from thence. " Some of the philos- 
ophers," says Josephus, " have been insolent enough to in- 
dulge such contradictions, while some of them have under- 
taken to use such words as entirely take away the nature of 
God ; while others of them have taken away his providence 
over mankind." How correct is this statement ! They 
denied the providence of God [the same fact is stated 
by Watson], and used words which excluded everything 
essential to the nature of God. Such were the corrupt 
teachings which they imparted to the people under the im- 
posing title of philosophy, while they withheld from them 
those correct ideas of the true God which, from time to 
time, they obtained from sacred sources. Not only are 
these facts asserted by Josephus, but some of their reasons 
for so doing are thus assigned : " Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, 
Plato, and the Stoic philosophers that succeeded them, and 
almost all the rest are of the same sentiments, and had the 
same notions of the true God; yet durst not these men dis- 
close those true notions to more than a few, because the 
body of the people were prejudiced with other opinions be- 
forehand." And again, a few pages after, he says : " Nay, 



206 watson's theological institutes 

Plato himself confesseth that it is not safe to publish the true 
notion 'concerning God among the ignorant multitude.'' 
No doubt these considerations had their influence in lead- 
ing the philosophers to conceal from the people correct, and 
impart erroneous, ideas of God ; yet the fact must not be 
overlooked, namely, that, if " the body of the people were 
prejudiced with other opinions beforehand," they were in- 
debted to their teachers for the erroneous opinions which 
produced such bad effects ; and those teachers, still depend- 
ing upon the natural and rejecting the supernatural^ could 
not correct the people when they would ! Hence two'facts 
are still to be accounted for, namely, Why had the philos- 
ophers taught the people those erroneous views of God and 
religion ? And why did the people still hold to the error, 
and reject the truth when it was presented ? For an an- 
swer to each of these questions we must return to the in- 
spired penman ; nor will we fail to find a satisfactory an- 
swer in the following inspired declarations : " The natural 
man receiveth not the things of the Sj)irit of God, for they 
are foolishness unto him ; neither can he know them, for 
they are spiritually discerned." He cannot know Jihem 
while he de|)ends upon the natural, and rejects the super- 
natural remedy. " The carnal mind is enmity against God ; 
it is not subject to the law of God, neither, indeed, can be," 
till the supernatural remedy, for its destruction, is applied 
and accepted. That occasional correct and even sublime 
ideas of God should be found in the writings and sayings 
of the ancient philosophers, in connection with so much 
that is directly the opposite, and even absurd, in the last 
degree, can only be accounted for by the facts here noticed. 
They had those ideas, as has been shown, from the teach- 
ings of revelation, but did not acknowledge the fact. 
Moreover, their unbelief, pride, and the other causes speci- 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 207 

■» 

Bed, led them, for the most part, to corrupt or reject the 
truth thus received. Or, as Paul expresses it, " they did 
aot like to retain God in their knowledge," but " changed 
the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the 
creature more than the Creator." In proof of this, and in 
opposition to the assertions of Watson's opponents, we will 
still further quote the facts of human history. And as 
Josephus is still before us we will just here favor the reader 
with a few samples of the gods worshipped by the ancient 
heathen, w^hile yet those renowned philosophers, of which 
we have been speaking, were their teachers. The samples 
are furnished by the great Jewish historian in what is called 
his second book against Apion ; but it is improperly so call- 
ed, for it is a very able exposure of heathenism and the vain 
pretensions of heathen philosophers and historians, and a 
defence of the religion of his fathers, and of the writings of 
the prophets, particularly those of Moses. As for " the 
Egyptian Apion," as he calls him, he takes his leave of that 
writer on the fifth page of this book, as hardly worthy his 
notice. 

Here, then, are a few of the samples, as furnished by 
our historian, and only a few, for they are so numerous, and 
most of them so vile, that we can only select a few of the 
best of them : 

He charges " the most famous poets and the most cele- 
brated legislators " with " spreading such notions originally 
among the body of the people concerning the gods; such 
as these : that they may be as numerous as the people have 
a mind to have them ; that they are begotten one by an- 
other, and that after all the kinds of generation you can 
imagine. They also distinguished them in their places and 
ways of living, as they would distinguish several sorts of 
animals ; as, some to be under the earth, some to be in the 



208 watson's theological institutes 

# 
sea, and the ancieutest of them all to be bound in hell ; and 

for those to whom they have allotted heaven, they have set 
over them one who, in title, is their father, but a tyrant and 
a lord ; whence it came to pass that his wife, and brother, 
and daughter (which daughter he brought forth from his 
own head) made a conspiracy against him to seize upon 
him and confine him, as he had himself seized upon and 
confined his own father before." They also taught that 
" some of the gods were beardless and young, and that 
others of them were old, and had beards accordingly. 
Also that some are set to trades ; that one god is a smith, 
and another goddess is a weaver ; that one god is a warrior, 
and fights with men ; that some of them are harpers, or 
delight in archery ; and, besides, that mutual seditions 
arise amongst them, and that they quarrel about men, and 
this so far that they not only lay hands upon one another, 
but that they are wounded by men, and lament and take 
on for such their afliictions. But what is the grossest of 
all are those unbounded lusts ascribed to almost all of 
them, and their amours. Moreover, the chief of all their 
gods, and their first father himself, overlooks those goddesses 
whom he had deluded, * *' * and sufiers them to be kept in 
prison or drowned in the sea. He is also bound up by fate, 
that he cannot save his own ofispring, nor can he bear their 
deaths without shedding of tears. These are fine things 
indeed ! as are the rest that follow." * * * « Nay, others 
there are that have advanced a certain timorousness and 
fear, as also madness and fraud, and any other of the vilest 
passions, into the nature and form of gods, and have per- 
suaded whole cities to ofier sacrifices to the better sort of 
them." * * * * " They also endeavor to move them, as 
they would the vilest of men, by gifts and presents, as look- 
ing for nothing else than to receive some great mischief 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 209 

from them unless tliey pay them such wages." It is well 
kno"\vii that the aborigines of this country oifer all their 
gifts to just such gods, and for precisely the ^me reason. 
The Rev. P. O. Johnson, for many years a missionary 
among the Indians, told me that, being overtaken by a 
storm while out upon a certain lake in an open boat, an 
Indian who was in the boat with him concluded that his 
god was angry, and was about to appease him by throwing 
hhn his blanket, but Mr. J. forbade his doing so. However, 
as the storm continued, and they were in imminent danger, 
the Indian attempted to throw out his blanket several 
times, asserting that this was the only way they could be 
saved. But the missionary, knowing that if the blanket 
were thrown out, and they should afterward reach land, 
the poor Indian would give his god credit for their deliver- 
ance, and be, perhaps, hopelessly confirmed in his idolatry, 
interposed his authority, and confidently affirmed that the 
Christians' God would bring them safe to land, and not 
ask his blanket either. And so he did, and thus gave 
evidence to this poor idolater that the Christians' God 
is the true God, and besides him there is not another. 
Such were "the intuitive beliefs" of the natural man 
in ancient Greece, and such are his "intuitive beliefs" 
to-day as he wanders through the unbroken woods of 
America, the wilderness his home, the skin of a wild 
beast his covering, and an idol or a devil his god ; nor does 
he discover the slightest evidence of an ability to raise 
liimself in any sense of the word ; on the contrary, he con- 
tinues to sink deeper and deeper in ignorance, indolence, 
and misery, till the lion, the wolf, and the deer would, in 
many respects, be degraded by being compared with him. 
These are indisputable facts, before which the teachings of 
transcendentalism, respecting the natural man, cannot stand 
for a moment. 



210 Watson's theological institutes 

After describing the ignorance and idolatry of the 
ancient heathen, as above, Jocephus has the following re- 
flections, which we think worthy of notice : " "Wherefore, 
it deserves our inquiry what should be the occasion of this 
unjust management, and of these scandals about the Deity. 
And truly I suppose it to be derived from the imperfect 
knowledge the heathen legislators had at first of the true 
nature of God ; nor did they explain to the people even so 
far as they did comprehend of it ; nor did they compose 
the other parts of their political settlements according to 
it, but omitted it as a thing of very little consequence ; and 
they gave leave both to the poets to introduce what gods, 
they pleased, and those subject to all sorts of passions, and 
to the orators to procure political decrees from the people 
for the admission of such foreign gods as they thought 
proper. The painters, also, and statuaries of Greece had 
herein great power, as each of thefn could contrive a shape 
[for a god], the one to be formed out of clay, and the 
other by making a bare picture of such a one. But those 
workmen that were principally admired had the use of 
ivory and gold as the constant materials for their new 
statues." The amount is this : poets, painters, and statu- 
aries invented gods at pleasure, fixed their shape, ani 
ascribed to them the vilest passions ; while the mechanic 
made them of such material as he could procure ; and this 
would vary from wood to gold, according to his means and 
the taste and means of the purchaser. But all the design- 
ers and mechanics in Greece could not invent and make 
gods enough to meet "the demands of the people ; hence 
the orators had a chance to exert their oratorical powers, 
which they did, and obtained decrees from the people to 
import foreign gods to meet the increasing demands of the 
people ! This terrible state of things among the masses of 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 211 

the people, Josephus attributes to the ignorance and dis- 
honesty of their teachers and rulers. The blind led the 
blind, and both fell into the .ditch, the horrible ditch of 
idolatry, the yilest impurity, and the deepest misery ; nor 
did they ever rise from thence, only so far as they accepted 
the supernatural remedy provided by the merciful Father 
of the spirits of all flesh. 



212 watson's theological instttutes 



CHAPTER YII. 

As the views we oppose are asserted with great confi- 
d^ce, and as many cling to them with great tenacity, espe- 
cially the sceptical classes, we must be permitted to dwell 
yet longer on the facts of human history. We desire espe- 
cially to show that this ignorance of God was not confined 
to the uninstructed and unthinking masses. We will gather 
a few more of the facts of history from Grotius. Speaking 
of Moses, Strabo says : " He both said and taught that the 
Egyptians did not rightly conceive of God when they liken- 
ed him to wild beasts and cattle ; nor the Libyans, nor the 
Greeks, in resembling him by a human shape ; for God is 
uo other than that universe which surrounds us ; the earth, 
and the sea, and the heaven, and the w5rld, and the nature 
of all things, as they are called by us." Poor Strabo ! he 
could not worship the gods of the Egyptians, the Libyans, 
or the Greeks ; as a philosopher he could not bow down to 
them nor serve them, they were so gross, so bad, and, 
many of them, at least, so vile withal. Hence, he preferred 
the earth, the sea, and the nature of all things ! These be 
thy gods, O Strabo! The heathen, as Grotius observes, 
worshipped evil spirits as such ; also human beings depart- 
ed, as a drunken Bacchus, an effeminate Hercules, a Romu- 
lus, unnatural to his brother, and a Jupiter as unnatural to 



AND THE BIBLE DEFEOTDED. 213 

his father. They worshipped the stars and elements ; and 
various kinds of brutes, reptiles, and serpents. Also things 
that have no being, such as virtues and vices ; yea, and dis- 
eases, such as fever, &c. Tully and Livy tell us of temples 
being dedicated to honor. "Perhaps," says Le Clerc, 
" some may explain this worship of the heathen in this 
manner ; as to say, that it was not so much the things 
which were commonly signified by those words that they 
worshipped, as a certain divine power, from which they 
flowed, or certain ideas in the divine understanding." . . . 
" But the heathen themselves never interpreted this mat- 
ter thus." And what better are they who in the present 
day recognize no God but nature. "IsTature," say they, 
" is God, and God is nature." And with them nature is 
everything, and everything is nature-, except the religion 
of the Bible: that, of course, is quite unnatural! And as 
to dedicating temples, we imitate the heathen in that partic- 
ular also : I myself was present when a certain temple was 
dedicated " To Universal Benevolence," here in Michigan. 
True we have not, as far as I know, dedicated temples to 
vices and diseases / but what we may do in the future is, 
of course, an open question. "At the present day," says 
Mr. Watson, " not merely a few speculative philosophers in 
the heathen world, but the many millions of the human race 
who profess the religion of Budku^ not only deny a 
Supreme First Cause, but dispute with subtilty and vehe- 
mence against the doctrine." " The Buddhists," says Dr. 
Davy, as quoted by Mr. Watson, " do not believe in the 
existence of a Supreme Being, self-existent and eternal, the 
creator and preserver of the universe : indeed, it is doubt- 
ful if they believe in the existence and operation of any 
cause beside fate and necessity, to which they seem to refer 
all changes in the moral and physical world. They appear 



214 "watson's theological institutes 

to be materialists in the strictest sense of the term, and to 
have no notion of pure spirit or mind. Prane and hitta^ 
life and intelligence, the most learned of them appear to 
consider identical; — seated in the heart, radiating from 
thence to different parts of the body, like heat from a fire, 
— uncreated, without beginning, at least that they know of; 
capable of being modified by a variety of circumstances, 
Uke the breath in different musical instruments ; — and, like 
a vapor, capable of passing from one body to another ; — 
and like a flame liable to ^e extinguished and totally anni- 
hilated. Gods, demons, men, reptiles, even the minutest 
and most imperfect animalcules, they consider as similar 
beings, formed of the four elements — ^heat, air, water, and 
that which is tangible, and animated hj praue and hitta. 
They believe that a man may become a god or a demon ; 
or that a god may become a man or an animalcule ; that 
ordinary death is merely a change of form ; and that this 
change is almost infinite, and bounded only by annihilation, 
which they esteem the acme of happiness ! " 

Men who had such erroneous views of God and of " the 
origin of all things," were, as might be expected, equally 
in the dark as to their nature, and as to a future state. 
" The Greeks," says Grotius, " who derived their learning 
from the Chaldeans and Egyptians, and who had some 
hope of another life after this, spoke very doubtfully con- 
cerning it, as is evident from the disputes of Socrates, and 
from the writings of Tully, Seneca, and others. And 
though they searched dihgently for arguments to prove it, 
they could offer nothing of certainty. For those which 
they allege hold generally as strong for beasts as they do 
for men. Which when some of them considered, it is no 
wonder that they imagined that souls passed out of men 
into beastS; and out of beasts into men." In proof of this 



Amy THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 215 

he gives us numerous testimonies, not from the ignorant 
and uninstructed masses, but from the brightest lights 
among the ancient heathen. The following are a few out 
of many: "Now I would have you understand," says Plato 
in his Phgedon, " that I hoj^e to go amongst good men ; 
but I will not be too positive in affirming it." ... "If 
those things I am speaking of should prove true, it is very 
well to be thus persuaded concerning them ; but if there be 
nothing after death, yet I shall always be the less concern- 
ed for the present things of this life ; and this my ignorance 
will not continue long, for that would be bad, but will 
shortly vanish." The following mournful words of TuUy, 
as found in his first Tusculan question, indicate a painful 
uncertainty of mind. He says: "I know not what mighty 
thing they have got by it, who teach that, when the time 
of death comes, they shall entirely perish ; which if it should 
be (for I do not say anything to the contrary), what 
ground of joy or glorying does it afford ? " Again : " JSTow 
suppose the soul should perish with the body, can there be 
any pain, or can there be any sense at all, in the body after 
death ? N'obody will say so." It is evident that, after the 
utmost effort, and the most painful exercises of mind, this- 
great, man, like many others, had to leave it an undecided 
question, whether " the soul should perish with the body." 
These testimonies prove the truth of that remark of Jus- 
tin Martyr, which occurs in his dialogue with Trypho, and 
is quoted by Grotius: "The philosophers knew nothing 
of these things, nor can they tell what the soul is.'' Such 
are a few specimens of" the intuitions of pure reason," and 
such are " the primitive judgments " of those great men, 
when they attempted to explore the spiritual and the eter- 
nal world by the light of nature. But their taper was so 
feeble, and the darkness so dense, that they finally gave up 



216 watson's theological institutes 

the search in despair, and mournfully waited the coming 
of death to decide the great question. In the mean time, 
they placed the chief good and end of man in sensual pleas- 
ure. But this conclusion, too, was far from being satisfac- 
tory ; hence they finally reached that conclusion, recorded by 
Pliny, in his natural history, " that no mortal man is happy." 
No, not while ignorant of himself, of God, and a future 
state. For a man to be happy in such a state, is simply 
impossible. But "This is life eternal, that they might 
know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou 
hast sent." "I am come," says Jesus, "that they might 
have life.'' And again, " Happy are the pure in heart for 
they shall see God." Life and happiness come by the 
supernatural^ not by the natural / " Life and immortality 
are brought to light by the gospel." That thing called na- 
ture has no salvation fer fallen man ; hence those who 
reject the supernatural^ as we have shown the philosophers 
did, must, like them, remain in ignorance and misery. To 
turn from the supernatural to the natural^ is to leave 
*' the fountain of living waters," for the purpose of manu- 
facturing " cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no 
water." 

The following quotation from Calmet is well worthy a 
place just here ; in it we discover the fact that the intui- 
tions of the natural man in Judea are not much different 
from those of the natural man in Greece. We see, too, 
the importance of the apostolic warning, " Beware lest any 
man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the 
tradition of men, after the rudiments [or elements] of this 
world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the 
fulness of the godhead bodily. And ye are complete in 
him." Observe, Christ and this philosophy lead in op- 
posite directions, so that he who follows the one does not 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 217 

follow the other. Observe, too, that when Paul connects 
with this caution the assertion, " ye are complete in him," 
he thereby intimates that the advocates of this philoso- 
phy recognize Christianity as incomplete, and that they 
come with their philosophy to perfect what is lacking in 
the Christian system. Of this we have a striking example 
in the teachings which have called forth this defence. 
Now, then, " beware " of this error, for ye are complete in 
Christ ! Christianity is a perfect system. It is perfect, as 
we have shown, both in its teachings and in the evidence 
by which it proves these teachings to be from God. It is 
no new thing for error to be introduced and propagated 
under the name of philosophy ; therefore, " Beware lest 
any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit." 
And your only safety is in holding to the great truth, that 
ye are complete in Christ ! I am quite aware that by thus 
enforcing the apostolic warning I shall, no doubt, be repre- 
sented by a certain class as an enemy to philosophy, as 
Watson has been, and as Paul was by the philosophers of 
his day, who even called him a " babbler," and so shall 
I be called, in all probability ; but that is a matter of little 
consequence. I am thoroughly convinced of the error 
which I oppose, and of the truth which I defend, and have 
made up my mind to oppose the one and defend the other 
at the risk of all consequences. Calmet says : 

" About the time that the several sects of philosophers 
were formed among the Greeks, as the Academics, the 
Peripatetics, and the Stoics, there also arose among the 
Jews several sects, as the Essenes, the Pharisees, and the 
Sadducees. The Pharisees had some resemblance to the 
Stoics, the Sadducees to the Epicureans, and the Essenes to 
the Academics. The Pharisees were proud, vain, and 
boasting, like the Stoics ; the Sadducees, who denied the 
10 



218 watson's theological institutes 

immortality of the soul, and the existence of spirits, freed 
themselves at once, like the Epicureans, from all solicitude 
about futurity; the Essenes were more moderate, more 
simple and religious, and, therefore, approached nearer to 
the Academics. The philosophers against whom Paul in- 
veighs in his epistle to the Romans boasted the extent of 
their knowledge, the purity of their morahty, the eloquence 
of their writings, the strength of their reasonings, and the 
subtilty of their arguments. Their weaknesses were pride, 
curiosity, presumption, hypocrisy, ambition. They ascribed 
everything to human reason^ and would be thought- supe- 
rior in all things. Although their lives were disorderly, 
shameful, and even injurious to human nature, yet they 
would pass on the world for good men. To them the 
apostle opposed the humility of the cross of Christ, the 
force of his miracles, the purity of his moral doctrines, the 
depth of his mysteries, and the evident proofs of his mis- 
sion." 

What a terrible picture is here given of those philoso- 
phers ! " They ascribed everything to human reason." 
And what was the result ? What did " the intuitions of 
pure reason " do for them ? Did they in this way become 
wise and good? Just the reverse. They were proud^ 
vain, foolish, sceptical, if not atheists, and immoral in the 
last degree. What Calmet says of them is fully confirmed 
by Cicero in the following words, quoted by Watson. 
Speaking of their teachings, he says : " Do you think that 
these things had any influence upon the men (a very few 
excepted) who thought, and wrote, and disputed about 
them ? Who is there of all the philosophers whose mind, 
life, and manners were conformable to right reason ? "Who 
ever made his philosophy the law and rule of his life, and 
not a mere show of his wit and parts ? Who observed his 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 219 

own instructions, and lived in obedience to his own pre- 
cepts ? On the contrary, many of them were slaves to 
filthy lusts, many to pridcj^ covetousness," &g. The testi- 
mony of Origen is to the same effect. *' I know," says that 
father, " of but one Phaedo and one Polemon throughout 
alLGreece who were ever made better by their philosophy." 
Such was the 7iatural inan^ and such his natural reason^ in 
philosophical Greece ; nor was he any better even in the 
land of Israel. Despite Moses and the prophets, and right 
in the face of Jesus and the apostles, the Sadducees were 
gross materialists. "The Sadducees," says Josephus, 
" argue that the soul perishes with the body." And again, 
" They deny the soul's immortality, and rewards and punish- 
ments in another life." Jerome, too, as quoted by Grotius, 
bears testimony to the same fact ; he says : " They beHeved 
the soul perishes with the body." And a higher authority 
than either says : " The Sadducees say that there is no 
resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit." Yet in the face of 
all these facts of human history it is confidently asserted 
that " The human intelligence is configured and correlated 
to eternal principles of order, and right, and good as they 
exist in the Infinite Intelligence." That " God has imposed 
upon his intelligence such laws of thought as determine 
him to form the idea of God, of right and wrong, of duty, 
and of accountability." That " the idea of God, the belief 
in God, may be justly represented as native to man." 
That " it springs up spontaneously, as a plant from its germ ; 
it will well up from the depths of his soul." That, " ac- 
companying this perception of the immutable distinction 
between virtue and vice, we have the consciousness of its 
being our duty to avoid the one and perform the other. 
We have also an abiding conviction that moral good is re- 
wardable, and that vice merits punishment. And, finally, 



220 watson's theological institutes 

we have a conscious apprehension of a future retribution.'*'* 
Such, it is asserted, are the mental and moral intuitions of 
universal mankind. All this is native to man / it springs 
up sponta7ieously from the depths of his soid^ as a plant 
from its germ! Thus, while Gentile and Jewish philoso- 
phers are denying the being of a God, the existence, of 
angels and spirits, the resurrection of the human body, fu- 
ture rewards and punishments, and asserting the eternity 
of matter, Christian philosophers are asserting as above, of 
universal mankind ! And they are equally regardless of 
the fact that all around them men are asserting that they 
have no souls, and going to and fro throughout the length 
and breadth of the land preaching nosoulism. And be- 
cause Watson does not unite with them in these marvellous 
assertions, does not ignore but assert the facts of human 
history^ these philosophers are highly displeased, and can 
ill conceal their regrets. Such are philosophers, such is 
philosophy, such is human nature, such the natural man. 
And in view of the whole I certainly feel increasingly 
thankful for the Bible, and for Watson's Institutes. 

To the numerous facts of human history already given 
we will add the experience of Mr. Wesley, as recorded by 
himself, in his sermon, entitled, " The Case of Reason Im- 
partially Considered." Speaking of what reason can not 
do, he says it cannot produce satisfactory conviction " of 
an invisible eternal world." And amongst other proofs of 
this, he adduces his own experience thus : 

" Many years ago I found the truth of this by sad ex- 
perience. After carefully heaping up the strongest argu- 
ments which I could find, either in ancient or modern au- 
thors, for the very being of a God, and (which is nearly 
connected with it) the existence of an invisible world ; I 
have wandered up and down, musing with myself: What 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 221 

if all these things which I see around me, this earth and 
heaven,' this universal frame, has existed from eternity ? 
What if that melancholy supposition of the old poet be the 
real case ? 

Olt] TTcp (jivkXiDV yever], toltjSc Kai avSpoiv. 

What if the generation of men be exactly parallel with the 
generation of leaves ? If the earth drops its successive in- 
habitants, just as the tree drops its leaves ? What if that 
saying of a great man be really true — 

' Death is nothing, and nothing is after death ' ? 

How am I sure that this is not the case ; that I have not 
followed cunningly devised fables ? And I have pursued 
the thought, till there was no spirit in me ; and I was 
ready to choose strangling rather than Ufe. 

" But in a point of such unspeakable importance do not 
depend upon the word of another ; but retire for a while 
from the busy world, and make the experiment yourself. 
Try whether your reason will give you a clear, satisfactory 
evidence of the invisible world. After the prejudices of 
education are laid aside, produce your strong reasons for 
the existence of this. Set them all in array ; silence all ob- 
jections, and put your doubts to flight. Alas ! you cannot, 
with all your understanding. You may repress them for a 
season. But how quickly will they rally again, and attack 
you with redoubled violence ! And what can poor reason 
do for your deliverance ? The more vehemently you 
struggle, the more deeply you are entangled in the toils ; 
and you find no way to escape. 

" How was the case with that great admirer of reason, 
the author of the maxim above recited ? I mean the fa- 
mous Mr. Hobbes. None will deny that he had a strong un- 



222 watson's theological institutes 

derstanding. But did it produce in him a full and satisfac- 
tory conviction of an invisible world? Did it open the 
eyes of his understanding to see 

' Beyond the bounds of this diurnal sphere ' ? 

Oh, no ! Far from it ! His dying words are never to be 
forgotten. 'Where are you going, sir,' said one of his 
friends. He answered, * I am taking a leap in the dark ! ' 
and died. Just such an evidence of the invisible world can 
bare reason give to the wisest of men ! " 

It is worthy of remark that what Mr. Wesley here 
says of himself, is precisely what Grotius says of the ancient 
philosophers. Speaking " of another life after this," he says : 
" And though they searched diligently for arguments to 
prove it, they could offer nothing of certainty. For those 
which they allege hold generally as strong for beasts as they 
do for men, which when some of them considered, it is no 
wonder that they imagined that souls passed out of men 
into beasts, and out of beasts into men." The following 
argument of Socrates is given as a specimen : " That which 
moves of itself is eternal." According to this argument 
eternal beings are very numerous ! 

A certain missionary gives us the following account 
of the aborigines of New Zealand. He says : " War is 
all their glory ; they kill and eat their prisoners, and con- 
sider the Supreme Being as an invisible man-eater, and 
regard him with a mixture of hatred and fear." See 
the tract quoted above. Here is another proof that " the 
human intelligence is configured and correlated to eter- 
nal principles of order, and right, and good as they 
exist in the Infinite Intelligence," and that " the idea of 
God, the belief in God, is native to man ; " that '' it springs 
up spontaneously as a plant from its germ," so perfectly 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 223 

natural is it ! Thus we add fact to fact, knowing the ob- 
stinacy, not to say fanaticism, that characterizes the error 
which we oppose. We wish, also, to keep before the mind 
the fact that the natural man gets no better, only so far as 
the supernatural remedy is applied and accepted. Despite 
all the laws of nature, despite all your systems of natural the- 
ology ^ he gets worse instead of better, till the supernatural 
remedy is applied and accepted. All the facts within the 
lohole range of observation are with us in this 'inatter^ and 
not one loith our opponents ! The heathen are not only as 
bad now as they were thousands of years ago, but worse, 
and becoming worse; the god, of the New Zealander is 
" an invisible man-eater," and though those poor wretches 
worship this imaginary monster god, they both fear and 
hate him. Here is another specimen of the " deductions 
from the mind's own first principles," which, we are told, 
" constitute a pi^iori reasoning." It is a painful fact, how- 

# ever, that those poor wretches, with all " the facts of the 
universe " and their own " mental intuitions " to assist 
them, never reason themselves any wiser till the supernat- 

^ ural remedy dissipates the darkness and quickens them 
into life ! 

The fact is, it has been the great error of philosophers, 
both ancient and modern, to ignore or reject the super- 
natural^ and attempt to account for and explain all the 
phenomena that are discoverable, whether in mind or mat- 
ter, by what are called natural laws, and to rely upon rea- 
son alone in their investigations, as though it were beneath 
the philosopher to accept of the help offered by revelation. 
Hence many of their efforts have been perfectly abortive, 
and worse than abortive ; not only because the work 
which they assigned to reason was beyond the power of 
reason, but also, because much of the phenomena which. 



224 watson's theological iNSurrTES 

they undertook to explain upon natural principles was the 
work of supernatural power. Suppose, for instance, a 
man should recognize as natural phenomena the budding 
of Aaron's rod, and its bearing fruit the same night ; the 
falling of the manna ; Christ feeding the five thousand at 
one time, and seven thousand at another ; his stilling the 
winds and the waves by the utterance of a word ; and by 
a word giving sight to the blind, health to the leper, and life 
to the dead ; and impose upon his reason the task of ex- 
plaining all this by what are called natural laws ; who 
does not see the result of such mistakes ? That which he 
recognized as natural was supernatural^ and the work 
which he assigned to reason was absolutely beyond the 
power of reason. Hence his efforts would not only be a 
failure, but would be puerile and even ridiculous. And 
just such have been the efforts of philosophers in reference 
to other matters equally supernatural^ though recognized 
as natural. And theologians, as well as philosophers, have 
fallen into the same mistakes, and both philosophy and re- 
ligion have suffered in consequence. A careful examina- 
tion of the teachings which we oppose in this defence, and 
of the objections raised against the teachings of Richard 
Watson, will convince any one that they are characterized 
by these mistakes, viz., the not discriminating between the 
natural and the supernatural., between what «5, and what 
is not., the work of reason. It is by the supernatural that 
fallen man is raised, fi*om first to last, as we formerly show- 
ed. It is by the supernatural that his dead soul is quick- 
ened, and his blind eyes opened. And it is by the super- 
natural that the spirtual and the eternal worlds are reveal- 
ed to him. Hence, all attempts to account for and explain 
these and similar supernatural phenomena by what are 
called natural laws, must ever prove an utter failure. For 



1 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 225 

the same reason, whoever expects these supernatural and 
mighty works to be accomplished by what are called natu- 
ral laws J will surely be disappointed. The whole system of 
grace which has been introduced for the salvation of fallen 
man is supernatural : there w^as no natural law by which 
forfeited life could be restored to fallen man. Hence St. 
Paul says : " If there had been a law given which could 
have given life, verily righteousness should have been by 
the law." It is for want of recognizing this great truth 
that men become infidels, who, it is well known, are always 
talking about nature^ and will see nothing beyond, above, 
or superior to, nature. While Paul is saying, " I determin- 
ed to know nothing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him 
crucified," they seem to say, " We are determined to know 
nothing among you but nature." It is a striking and very 
important characteristic of Mr. Watson that he carefully 
distinguishes between the natural and the supernatural, 
between what is and what is not the legitimate work of 
reason ; and in these particulars also his writings and those 
of his opponents present a very striking contrast. 

As the error of ignoring, or denying, the supernatural^ 
and recognizing the natural only, has been a great error in 
all ages, and is now, it seems to us, a growing error, we 
will dwell upon it yet a little longer ; especially as those 
who fall into this error are almost sure to fall into the other 
errors which we have sj^ecified. 

We have an illustration and confirmation of these state- 
ments in the wi'itings of modern geologists ; they seem 
determined to account for and explain all the phenomena 
which come under their notice, by what are called natural 
laws. In this also their writings are a perfect contrast to 
those of Moses and Watson, both of whom recognize and 
10* 



226 watson's theological institutes 

specify a supernatural power as the cause of much of the 
phenomena referred to. 

We have already seen how the ancient philosophers 
attempted to tell us how the earth was formed, and how 
its inhabitants originated. They all commenced with 
chaos, — 

" All things that are sprang from chaos vast." 

As to living creatures, whether Tnice or men^ some traced 
their origin to a maggot, and some to an Qg^^ while others 
were satisfied to give us a less specific account, thus : 

" Heaven a^d earth were at first of one form, 
But when their different parts were separate, 
Thence sprang beasts, fowls, and all the shoals of fish, 
Nay, even men themselves." 

Again : " l^ature first formed all sorts of animals perfect ; 
and then ordained, by a perpetual law, that their succession 
should be continued by procreation." 

Diodorus Siculus, as quoted by Grotius, gives us, as his 
own views and those of preceding philosophers, the follow- 
ing : " In the beginning of the creation of aU things, the 
heavens and the earth had the same form and appearance, 
their natures being mixed together ; but afterward, the 
parts separating from one another, the world received that 
form in which we now behold it, and the air a continual 
motion. The fiery part ascended highest, because the 
lightness of its nature caused it to tend upward, for which 
reason the sun and multitude of stars go in a continual 
round ; the muddy and grosser part, together with the 
fluid, sunk down, by reason of its heaviness. And this, 
rolling and turning itself continually round, from its moist- 
ure, produced the sea, and from the mo/e solid j^arts pro- 
duced the earth, as yet very soft and miry ; but when the 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 227 

sun began to shine upon it, it grew firm and hard ; and the 
warmth causing the superficies of it to ferment, the moist- 
ure, in many places swelling, put forth certain putrid sub- 
stances, covered with skins, such as we now see in the 
fenny mporish grounds, when, the earth being cool, the air 
happens to grow warm, not by a gradual change, but on a 
sudden. Afterward the foremen tioned substances, in the 
moist places, having received life from the heat in that 
manner, were nourished in the night by what fell from 
the clouds surrounding them, and in the day they were 
strengthened by the heat. Lastly, when these foetuses 
were come to their full growth, -and the membranes by 
which they were enclosed broke by the heat, all sorts of 
creatures immediately appeared ; those that were of a hot- 
ter nature became birds, and mounted up high ; those that 
were of a grosser and earthy nature, became creeping 
things, and such like creatures, which are confined to the 
earth ; and those which were of a watery nature imme- 
diately betook themselves to a place of the like quality, and 
were called fish." 

Euri]3ides, whom we quoted formerly, gives us a similar 
account of the origin of animals, only in his specification he 
very wisely includes " men themselves " ! and closes by 
saying, " This, therefore, is the account we have received 
of the original of things." And after adducing the facts of 
observation in proof of all this, such as those already ad- 
duced, he closes thus : " Now, if after the earth has been 
thus hardened, and the air does not preserve its original 
temperature, yet some animals are notwithstanding pro- 
duced; from hence, they say, it is manifest that in the 
beginning all sorts of living creatures were produced out 
of the earth in this manner." 

Now we could easily show, as Grotius, Le Clerc, Wat- 



228 watson's theological institutes 

son, and others have already shown, that all these accounts 
of " the origin of all things " are gross perversions of the 
Mosaic account; but our purpose just here is to call atten- 
tion to a single fact, namely this, that in all these accounts 
there is no recognition of the supernatural — all is natitral ; 
that is, everything was produced, " in the beginning," by 
what are called natural laws, as now understood. In a 
word, there is no God recognized from first to last — all is 
Natuee ! So much for the geological theories, or what you 
please to call them, of olden times. Now we are going to 
show that the theories of many modern geologists are not 
a whit better ; and we are strongly inclined to believe that 
they have many of their ideas from those ancient philos- 
phers, though they have not acknowledged their indebted- 
ness to them. 

After examining the ancient theories, we are more than 
ever convinced of the correctness of the following remarks 
of Paley, w^hich we introduce here, not only because they 
express our own views, and that better than we could our- 
selves, but also because Watson makes them his own, and 
quotes them as "just remarks on some modern schemes of 
atheism." 

" I much doubt," says the dx)ctor, " whether the new 
schemes have advanced anything upon the old, or done 
more than changed the terms of the nomenclature. For 
instance, I could never see the difference between the anti- 
quated system of atoms and Buffon's organic molecules. 
This philosopher, having made a planet by knocking off 
from the sun a piece of melted glass, in consequence of the 
stroke of a comet, and having set it in motion by the same 
stroke, both round its own axis and the sun, finds his next 
difficulty to be, how to bring plants and animals upon it. 
In order to solve this difficulty, we are to suppose the uni- 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 229 

verse replenished with particles endowed with life, but 
without organization or senses of th«ir own; and endowed 
also with a tendency to marshal themselves into organized 
forms. The concourse of these particles, by virtue of this 
tendency, but without intelligence, will, or direction (for I 
do not find that any of these qualities are ascribed to them), 
has produced the living forms which we now see." Now 
we only ask the reader to compare this theory of Buffon 
with that of Diodorus, given above, and we are sure he 
will find that the former has not improved upon the latter, 
no, not in the least. Bufibn supposes the universe replen- 
ished with particles endowed with life, but does not at- 
tempt to tell us where the particles came from, or how the 
life was produced. Diodorus represents the sun as pro- 
ducing fermentation, and then putrid substances in the 
muddy and marshy places on the earth's surface; and, 
finally, by the process described, "all sorts of creatures 
immediately appeared." We doubt not that the reader 
will give the preference to the ancient over the modern 
philosopher. This much, however, must be admitted : there 
is no God in either system, nor are we told where the sun 
and the earth came from in the one case, nor where the 
comet and the sun came from in the other, nor need we 
inquire : we know they believed in the eternity of matter ! 
But the doctor goes on : " Very few of the conjectures 
which philosophers hazard upon these subjects, have more 
of pretension in them than the challenging you to show 
the direct impossibility of the hypothesis. In the present 
example there seemed to be a positive objection to the 
whole scheme upon the very face of it ; which was, that if 
the case were as here represented, 'new combinations ought 
to be perpetually taking place ; new plants and animals, oi 
organized bodies which are neither, ought to be starting up 



230 watson's theological institutes 

before our eyes every day. For this, however, our philoso- 
pher has an answer. While so many plants and animals 
are already m existence, and consequently, so many ' in- 
ternal moulds,' as he calls them, are prepared and at hand, 
the organic particles run into these moulds, and are em- 
ployed in supplying an accession of substance to them, as 
well for their growth as for their propagation ; by which 
means things keep their ancient course. But, says the same 
philosopher, should any general loss or destruction of the 
present constitution of organized bodies take place, the 
particles, for want of ' moulds ' into which they might enter, 
would run into different combinations, and replenish the 
waste with new species of organized substances. 

" But these wonder-working instruments, these ' internal 
moulds,' what are they, after all ? What, when examined, 
but a name without signification? Unintelligible, if not 
self-contradictory ; at best differing in nothing from the 
' essential forms ' of the Greek philosophy ? One short 
sentence of Buffon's works exhibits his scheme as follows T 
* When this nutritious and prolific matter, which is diffused 
throughout all nature, passes through the internal moulds 
of an animal or vegetable, and finds a proper matrix or 
receptacle, it gives rise to an animal or vegetable of the 
same species ' ! " In all this there is no God, and, conse- 
quently, no common sense. Such are the teachings of the 
philosopher who was so much admired by Rousseau, that 
the latter, on entering the study of the former, bowed down 
and kissed the threshold of the door. They were true 
worshippers of nature and each other, but could not admire 
the Bible or worship its Author ! 

"Another system," continues the doctor, " which has 
lately been brought forward, and with much ingenuity, is 
that of appetencies. The principle, and the short account 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 231 

of the theory, is this : pieces of soft, ductile matter, being 
endued with propensities or appetencies for particular ac- 
tions, would, by continual endeavors, carried on through a 
long series of generations, work themselves gradually into 
suitable forms ; and at length acquire, though perhaps by 
obscure and almost imperceptible improvements, an organ- 
ization fitted to the action which their respective propensi- 
ties led them to exert. A piece of animated matter, for 
example, that was endued with a propensity to fly^ though 
ever so shapeless, though no other we will suppose than 
a round ball, to begin with, would in a course of ages, if 
not in a million of years, perhaps in a hundred million of 
years (for our theorists, having eternity to dispose of, are 
never sparing in time), acquire wings. The same tendency 
to locomotion in an aquatic animal, or rather in an animated 
lump which might happen to be surrounded with water, 
would end in the production of fins ; in a living substance, 
confined to the solid earth, would put out legs and feet / or 
if it took a dififerent turn, would break the body into ring- 
lets, and conclude by crawling uj^on the ground." 

The reader is requested to notice that as yet no God is 
recognized, still the su2:)eimatural is excluded, all is natural^ 
or, more properly speaking, all is unnatural Observe, too, 
all these philosophers commence with mere matter, and, of 
course, continue and end in rtiere matter y for the stream 
could not rise above its source. But though the J' all com- 
mence with matter, they diflfer considerably as to the form 
in which they found that matter " in the beginning." Some 
commenced with a sun and a comet, the latter striking 
the earth from the former in the shape of a huge mass of 
molten glass. Others tell us " the earth existed originally 
as a thin vapor or nebula, like that of which comets are 
composed ; " then " it cooled down to a fluid form, as steam 



232 watson's theological institutes 

condenses to water," and " the process of cooling contin- 
ued," we are told, " until a crust formed upon the surface 
of the fluid sphere, as ice forms upon water ; " and " as the 
cooling still proceeded, the water which had before existed 
as steam, condensed and covered the whole earth." We 
have neither time nor patience to follow our geological savans 
through the all but interminable process that followed ; the 
heating, cooling, swelling, contracting, boiling, steaming, 
condensing, and thundering process was long as well as ter- 
rific, but the process which followed this, it is presumed, was 
still longer. This, however, is a matter of no moment, for 
" our theorists," as Paley observes, " having eternity to dis- 
pose of, are never sparing in time." It is acknowledged 
that " the process of deposition must, from the nature of 
the case, have proceeded with extreme slowness, and it is 
obvious that very long periods of time, amounting to hun- 
dreds of thousands of years, must have been required for 
its completion." And we are very gravely told that " no 
human beings existed during the immense periods which 
these formations represent." Surely it was not necessary to 
tell us that human beings did not exist on the earth while it 
was a sphere of liquid fire^ nor yet, while it was enveloped 
in a body of steam so great that when it was condensed, 
that which before was a sphere of liquid fire was lost in a 
shoreless ocean ! IlsTor do we see how such a body oifire or 
water coiild, with any propriety, be called " the earth," 
though Moses, let it be remembered, calls it " the earth," 
from the time it was created ; not only after, but before, 
and during the work of the six days ! " Nor do we think 
it could, with any propriety, be called " the earth " while it 
existed " as a thin vapor or nebula," as others say it did ; 
nor need we be told that human beings did not exist during 
that period ; nor do we see how there could be vegetable 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 233 

or animal life of any kind during these periods ; so that 
all these changes, and others, which we are told occupied 
countless millions of years, must have taken place before 
what Moses calls the third day, for on that day the earth 
brought forth grass^ herh^ and fruit tree. Now these 
. changes, which our theorists say occupied unknown and in- 
conceivable periods of time, Mo^es says occupied six days ! 
Those of our modern geologists who have not completely 
thrown off the authority of the Scriptures, are very much 
annoyed by this Moses ; they try hard to get him to accept 
of their numerous and contradictory theories, but it is to 
no purpose ; he remains unchanged and unchangeable. It 
is no use contending with him ; what he says is law ! 
Pharaoh found that out, and so will all that contend with 
him, rest assured of it. However, they try hard to per- 
suade him to change his six days into countless millions of 
years, and his Sabbath into a period of corresponding 
length; but he seems to have no sympathy with their 
theories, for although it is essential to their geological 
systems, he will not grant them this single request, though 
they try hard to persuade him that it would be quite con- 
sistent with his system to do so ; but he does not see it so ; 
though they have used many arguments like the following : 
" How is the great age of the world before man was cre- 
ated, which geology requires, consistent with the Bible ac- 
count that the work of creation was begun and completed 
in six days? The days of the Mosaic account should proba- 
bly be regarded as long * periods ' (an interpretation which 
the original language of the Bible admits), and the even- 
ings and mornings as the beginnings and endings of these 
periods." Moses, however, contends that he is giving a 
simple narrative, and that he means what he says. More- 
over, he commands men to work six days, and rest one in 



234 watson's theological institutes 

every seven, and so do the sacred writers who follow him, 
and they will not be understood to command us to work 
several millions of years without stopping, and then rest, 
say, one million years, and enjoin this upon us by all the 
sanctions of the law, while, at the same time, they tell us 
that the average length of human life is threescore years 
and ten ; nor will Moses admit that he uses the word day 
in the narrative of the creation in a sense different from 
that in which he uses it in the law of the Sabbath. And 
as to the plea that " geology requires " the word to be thus 
understood, Moses contends that his geology requires noth- 
ing of the sort, for God spaJce^ and it was done ; he com- 
manded^ and it stood fast. Moreover he says, that both 
his common sense and his honesty require that he should be 
understood to mean just what he says, and that he cannot 
involve himself simply to give sanction to their geological 
theories, which he knows are not true ! Thus, not only 
Moses, but all the insjDired writers, are unalterably opposed 
to all those geological whims. 

But to return : we were speaking of the different 
shapes or states in v/hich different geologists have assumed 
the earth to be when they commenced their different 
theories of its future formation. Many of them, like the 
ancient heathen, commence with a chaotic ocean containing 
the elements of all things. To this, too, we must object 
the fact that Moses calls our globe " the earth" from the 
moment it was created. But various interpretations have 
been given to the original Hebrew words, which in the 
common version are rendered without form and void. 
"The Seventy," says Watson, "render the phrase tohu 
vahohu.) aopaTo<s, Kttt dKaracrKeuao-To?, invisible and unfurnish- 
ed.^^ Invisible, because God had not yet said, " J^et there be 
light ; " and unfurnished^ because he had not yet said, " Let 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 235 

the earth bring forth grass, the herb yieldmg seed, and the 
fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in 
itself, upon the earth." Nor had he yet created any liv- 
ing being. Hence the earth, as yet, was both invisible 
and unfurnished, " It is wonderful," says RosenmuUer, as 
quoted by Mr. Watson, " how so many interpreters could 
imagine that a chaos was described in the words tohu vaho- 
hu. This notion unquestionably took its origin from the 
fictions of the Greek and Latin poets, which were trans- 
ferred by those interpreters to Moses." " Those fictions 
ground themselves," observes Mr. Watson, " upon traditions 
received from the earhest times ; but the additions of 
poetic fancy are not to be applied to interpret the Scrip- 
tures." Mr. Watson observes further, after objecting to 
various geological notions : " If such interpretations of the 
Mosaic account cannot be allowed, the decisions of Scrip- 
ture and some of the modern speculations in geology must 
be left directly to oppose each other, and their hostility on 
this point cannot be softened by the advocates of accom- 
modation." 

But that to which more especially we desire to call 
attention just here, is the notion that this shoreless ocean, 
holding in solution the materials of the future earth, if not 
of the universe, was left to sport in the fields of space, 
rolling and tossing its waves with terrific fury, till by the 
slow process of deposition^ stratification^ crystallization^ 
and petrification^ our earth was produced and left as it is, 
and all this by the wonderful power of that indefinable 
thing, the infidel god^ Natuue. In all this process, observe, 
the supernatural is excluded, and God is not recognized at 
all ! For all these geologists can get along very well with- 
out God, and still better without Moses ! 

The following quotation from "The London Encyclo- 



236 watson's theological institutes 

psedia " will show where Dr. Hutton and his followers com- 
mence their geological theory ; it will also show how they 
also can construct a world without any power but that of 
•nature : " Dr. Hutton does not go hack to chaos to lay the 
foundation of his habitable world, nor does he borrow 
much assistance in constructing his fabric from chemical 
attractions. He rests upon a pre-existing continent, out of 
the ruins of which our present dry land was formed and 
arranged principally by mechanical means. The portion 
of the globe which we now possess was, according to his 
hypothesis, the bottom of the sea when the older continent 
was decaying to form it ; this older continent was then, of 
course, immersed ; and, lest we should be alarmed at the 
recurrence of a similar catastrophe to this scene of our in- 
terests, we are told that it will be followed by a similar 
renovation. Thus, as one continent descends another rises, 
like the opposite scales of a balance ; and in the resources of 
"this system that order of organic nature is supposed to be 
traced by which the continued existence of the different 
races is secured, not by the perpetuity of the individual, 
but by the successive reproduction of the kind. Our pres- 
ent world is thus one in an indefinite series of worlds which 
have existed in times past, and which are destined in fu- 
ture to appear ; and all the less obvious or more striking 
changes which we witness are steps in the progress of 
mighty revolutions, to which the imagination can set no 
limits, either with regard to duration or magnitude." Still 
no God is recognized, nothing supernatural is admitted, all 
is as natural as the flowing of a river, or the crumbling of 
its banks, or the growth of a plant. And it is more than 
intimated that thus it has been in all time or eternity past, 
and will be in eternity to come ! 

The N'eptunian or Wernerian system commences with 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 237 

chaos, or a vast ocean with the materials of the future earth 
in sohition, and proceeds on the principle of de2oosition and 
formation, as described above, till " the waters subsided 
and left the dry land for the support of animals and vege- 
tables." The waters, however, "from some inscrutable 
causes, again rose and resumed their former bed, and a 
second time a chaotic fluid invested the crust of the earth. 
And, in the words of Thomson, 

' A shoreless ocean tumbled round the globe.' 

This rise of the waters Werner finds necessary to account 
for the position and structure of the secondary trap forma- 
tions, so strangely attending or overlying the other second- 
ary strata." As there is nothing m the processes here 
described very difierent from some previously given, it will 
suffice to add the following quotations : " When the waters 
had retired so much as to permit the formation of this class 
of rocks, and had ceased to cover them, the crust of the 
earth was prepared for supporting animal and vegetable 
Ufe, and received from the hand of nature families of both 
in abundance." See " London Encylopsedia," article Geo- 
logy. Still there is nothing supernatural / God is not rec- 
ognized in all this — Nature does all ! 

Watson's reviewer gives us, on page 202 of the Review, 
the following quotation from Hugh Miller : " The globe 
itself was once a molten mass of liquid fire. There was 
not one spore, or monad, or atom of life through all its 
dark domains. Creation, from its centre to its circumfer- 
ence, was a creation of dead, inorganic matter." The 
reviewer adds : " The history of the globe, as written in 
fossil hieroglyphics on tables of stone, teaches us that there 
have been many successive and independent creations." 
Thus Hugh Miller is one of those who commence their 



238 watson's theological msirruTEs 

geological process with " a molten mass of liquid fire," and 
the reviewer, it is presumed, is one of the same class, but 
he believes also in " many successive and independent crea- 
tions." This he finds written " on tables of stone." 

Such are a few of the geological notions that are scat- 
tered all over the land by newspapers, lecturers, and book- 
makers. Some commence to tinker up a world out of a 
mass of liquid fire, some out of a vast and shoreless ocean, 
and some out of a continent that strangely sprang up out 
of a vast ocean ; while others, very fortunately, and not 
less strangely, obtain a huge mass of molten glass, struck 
off from the sun, and by great industry and the help oina' 
ture, of course, tinker up a world out of that. And when, 
in their imagination, they have succeeded in making a world 
without God, they proceed to furnish it without God ! In 
doing this, as in constructing the earth, they have different 
beginnings. In originating living beings, some commence 
with a maggoty some with an egg^ some with molecules, 
some with appetencieSy internal moulds^ or prolific matter. 
And from these, by the power of nature, they produce 
all that is ! 

The reader is no doubt weary of these godless theories, 
but not more so than we are ourselves. We will therefore 
dismiss them with a single quotation from the " London En- 
cylopsedia." Speaking of this class of geological theorists, 
the writer says : " The theories or dreams which they form- 
ed must therefore be viewed merely in the light of philo- 
sophical romances, or ingenious works of fimcy, and would 
apply to any other planet as well as to ours. Nineteen of 
them may be found in the introduction to Mr. Accum's 
' Chemistry.' They bear the same relation to the state and 
appearances of the earth as the Oceana or the Utopia bear 
to actually existing governments ; and can no more account 



A^D THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 239 

for its phenomena than the fictions of* enchantment can ex- 
plain the events of history." 

Speaking of various geological conjectures, many of 
whicli are far in advance of those which we have given 
above, Mr. Watson says : " To all these suppositions, though 
not unsupported by the authority of some great critics, 
there are considerable objections ; and if the difficulty of 
reconciling geological phenomena with the Mosaic chro- 
nology were greater than it appears, none of them ought 
hastily to be admitted. That creation, in the first verse 
of Genesis, signifies production out of thing, and not out of 
pre-existent matter, though the original word may be used 
in both senses, is made a matter of faith by the Apostle 
Paul, who tells us, ' that the things which are seen, loere 
not made of things which do appear / ' which is sufficient 
to settle that point. By the same important passage it is 
also determined, that the worlds were produced in their 
form, as well as substance, instantly out of nothing ; or it 
would not be true, that they were not made of things which 
do appear." " The apostle states," says Dr. Adam Clarke 
on the place, " that these things were not made out of a^:)re- 
existent matter ; for, if they were, that matter, however 
extended or modified, must appear in that thing into which 
it is compounded and modified ; therefore it could not be 
said, that the things which are seen, are not made of things 
that a^ppear / and he shows us also, by these words, that 
the present mundane fabric was not formed or reformed 
from one anterior, as some suppose." This text, as here 
understood, and we do not see how it can be understood 
otherwise, settles these two grand points, namely, that the 
worlds had their origin in the creative act of the Almighty, 
and that, of course, instantaneously. Second, that they 
had their /(9rw^ by the^a^ of the same Almighty Being, and 



240 WATSON 's THEOLOGICAL INS-JITUTES 

that of course instantaneously. These two truths of reve- 
lation sweep away at a stroke all the geological tinkerings 
of philosophers, both ancient and modern ! And all this is 
confirmed by the plain and unmistakable words of Moses in 
his narrative of the creation and formation of the worlds, 
and of the origin of all things. In proof of this we simply 
call attention to the following quotations, which we think 
are decisive of the points at issue : '' In the beginning God 
created the heavens and the earth." " And God said. Let 
there be light : and there was light." " And God said, 
Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto 
one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so." 
" And God said. Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb 
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his 
kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth : and it was so." 
"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly 
the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly 
above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God 
created great whales, and every living creature that 
3rovETH, which the waters brought forth abundantly after 
their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind : and God 
saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, 
Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and 
let fowl multiply in the earth." " And God made the beast 
of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and 
everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind." 
" And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our 
likeness." " So God created man in his own image, in the 
image of God created he him ; male and female created he 
them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them. 
Be fruitful, and multiply." Now, we simply call the atten- 
tion of the reader to the two facts asserted in the above 
quotations. First, that the existence of the worlds, and of 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 241 

men, animals, and vegetables, is the instant result of God's 
act, or word. Second, that when m.en, animals, and vege- 
tables produce their own species, the original power to do 
so is from that same God that gave them their existence. 
Had he not given the power and uttered the command, no 
being would have m^ultiplied. When by nature philoso- 
phers mean this, we have no dispute, for according to this^ 
showing nature itself is God's creature ! On these points 
Moses is still more specific, if that can be, in the second 
chapter of Genesis, where he recapitulates what " God 
created and made^'' or created to make, as it is in the mar- 
gin. In evidence of this we will give yet another quota- 
tion : " These are the generations of the heavens and of the 
earth when they were created, in the day that the Loud 
God m^ade the earth and the heavens, and every plant of 
the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the 
field before it grew : for the Lord God had not caused it to 
rain ilpon the earth." Before the ordinary process of vege- 
tation had commenced, God produced qyqvj plant and every 
herb perfect, and instantaneous, with the seed in itself. 
And, in short, everything, every creature, was perfect, was 
complete in that very day on which it was created or made. 
Here all is supernatural y the being, and the original char- 
acter and form of every creature are attributed to the im- 
mediate actor fiat of the Loed God! " When the geological 
dreams, specimens of which we have given above, are con- 
trasted with these sublime teachings of Moses, on the same 
subject, they sink into drivelling nonsense, and appear su- 
premely contemptible. That heathen philosophers should 
teach as they have done, is strange ; but that Christian phi- 
losophers, with the Bible in their hand, should do so, is at 
once unaccountable and intolerable ! And it has long ap- 
peared to us strange, passing strange, that a certain class 
11 



24:2 watson's theological institutes 

of geologists, when attempting to account for the various 
geological phenomena, utterly ignore, not only the creative 
SLudi formative acts of the Almighty, as recorded by Moses, 
but also the original gathering together of the waters into 
one place, and the general deluge ; which, if they do not 
account for all the phenomena, will certainly account for 
much of them. 

" An able work," says Mr. Watson, " has been recently 
published on the subject by Mr. Granville Penn, who has at 
once reproved the bold philosophy which excludes the 
operation of God, and employs itself only among second 
causes ; and has unfolded the Mosaic account of two great 
revolutions of the earth, one of which took place when 
' the waters were gathered into one place,' and the other 
at the deluge, ' when the fountains of the great deep were 
broken uj?,' and has applied them to account for those phe- 
nomena which have been made to require a theory not to 
be reconciled with the sacred historian. A scientific journal 
of great reputation, edited at the Royal Institution, has 
made an honorable disclaimer of those theories which 
contradicted the Scriptures, and speaks in commendation 
of Mr. Penn." We subjoin the quotation which Mr. Wat- 
son gives from the "scientific journal" referred to. 

" We are not inclined, even if we had time, to enter 
into the comparative merits of the fire and water fancies, 
miscalled theories ; but we have certain old-fashioned pre- 
judices, which, in these e7iUghtejied days of scepticism and 
infidelity, will no doubt be set down as mightily ridiculous, 
but which,* nevertheless, induce us to j)ause before we 
acquiesce either in the one or the other. There is another 
mode of accounting for the present state of the earth's 
structure, on principles at least as rational, in a philosoph- 
ical light, as either the Plutonian or Neptunian ; and in- 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. ' 243 

asmuch as it is more consistent with, and founded on, sacred 
history, incomparably superior. (See Mr. Granville Penn's 
' Comparative Estimate of the Mineral and Mosaical Geolo- 
gies.')" 

It may well be said that the " fire and water fancies " 
are " miscalled theories ; " and it is with equal propriety 
that they are referred to " scepticism and infidelity." 



244 watson's theological institutes 



CHAPTEE YIII. 

To chapter xx, of his "Theological Institutes," entitled, 
" Miscellaneous Objections Answered," Mr. Watson appends 
an extract from Mr. Penn's work on geology ; it commences 
on p. 259 of vol. i. As the " Institutes " are not much read, 
save by theological students, and Mr. Penn's work on geol- 
ogy is little known, we have concluded to introduce the 
entire extract just here. We do so the more readily be- 
cause it may be viewed as embodying Mr. Watson's views, 
as far as it goes, and because, while others seem determined 
to exclude the Scriptures from their geological investiga- 
tions, we" are fully convinced that it is only in the light of 
Scripture teaching that this subject can be safely and satis- 
factorily investigated. With the torch of revelation in his 
hand, and receiving that torch as from the hand of God, 
the man of science vnll investigate geological phenomena 
both with pleasure and profit, to himself and to others. 

Mr. Watson introduces the extract thus : *' Mr. Penn 
first controverts the notion of those geologists who think 
that the earth was originally a fluid mass ; and as they plead 
the authority of Sir Isaac Newton, who is said to have con- 
cluded from its figure (an obtuse spheroid)^ that it was 
originally a yielding mass, Mr. Penn fehows that this was 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 245 

only put hypothetically by him; and tliat he has laid it 
down expressly as his belief, not that there was first a 
chaotic ocean, and then a gradual process of first formations, 
but that ' God at the beginning formed all material things 
of such figures and properties as most conduced to the end 
for which he formed them ; ' and that he judged it to be un- 
philosophical to ascribe them to any mediate or secondary 
cause, such as laws of nature operating in chaos. Mr. Penn 
then proceeds to show, that, though what geologists call 
first formations may have the appearance of havings been 
produced by a process^ say of crystallization, or any other, 
that is no proof that they were not formed by the imme- 
diate act of God, as we are taught in the Scriptures ; and 
he confirms this by examples from the first formations in 
the animal and vegetable kingdom, and contends that the 
first formations of the mineral kingdom must come under 
the same rule." 

The fact is, minerals, vegetables, and animals are, alike, 
the work of God, whether he produces them instantly by 
his creative act, or gradually according to what are called 
the laws of nature. As for law, whether human or divine, 
it produces nothing^ it does nothing I It is merely the rule 
by which the producing or doing agent is pleased to act. 
And when God produces anything according to the laws 
of nature, we have no reason to suppose that he makes it 
essentially different from what he made that same thing 
when he produced it by his creative act ; on the contrary, 
we have reason to suppose that what is produced by the 
creative act is the pattern^ and that what is produced ac- 
cording to the laws of nature is made like that pattern. 
For instance, when God produced almonds upon Aaron's 
rod in one night, and that while it lay in the tabernacle, 
without either sun or rain, they were similar, doubtless, to 



246 watson's theological institutes 

those which he produced in the course of the season ac- 
cording to what are called the laws of nature : and if a 
naturalist, ignorant of the fact that they were produced as 
above, had examined them, he would, doubtless, have de- 
cided that thej were produced in the course of the season 
according to the known laws of nature. It is certain, how- 
ever, that he would have been mistaken. Just so it is 
with those things which God 7iow produces according to 
what are called the laws of nature ; they are doubtless the 
same as those which he owginally produced by his creative 
act, so much so that the naturalist would not discover any 
difference, And it is equally true that it is God that pro- 
duces in the one case as really as in the other. The almond 
tree that grows in the most fertile garden in Judea could 
no more produce almonds without God than could the rods 
that were deposited in the tabernacle. And what is true 
of the almond, is equally true of anything, and everything, 
that God produced by his creative act originally ; they 
were similar to the same genera and species as now pro- 
duced according to the laws of nature. So that arguments 
drawn from the present appearance of minerals, vegetables, 
and animals, do not prove that they were produced origi- 
nally hy a slow process. All such arguments are built upon 
a mere hypothesis which has no foundation in truth, and 
are, consequently, without foundation. And as all the 
geological systems to which we object are built upon this 
hypothesis, it follows that they are all without foundation. 
The Scriptures teach us that God created and formed the 
originals by his fiat, instantly^ not by a long, slow process, 
and that what he afterward produced, and now produces, 
by what are called, the laws of nature, are similar to the 
originals, and that the instantly created and slowly formed 
productions are alike the work of God. 



A1S"D THE BIBLE DEFENDED. . 247 

The following is the extract which Mr. Watson fur- 
nishes from Mr. Penn's geological work referred to above : 

" If a bone of the first created man now remained, and 
were mingled with other bones pertaining to a generated 
race^ and if it were to be submitted to the inspection and 
examination of an anatomist, what opinion and judgment 
would its sensible phenomena suggest respecting the mode 
of \l'$, first formation^ and what would be his conclusion ? 
If he were unapprized of its true origin, his mind would see 
nothing in its sensible phenomena but the laws of ossifica- 
tion ; just as the mineral geologist ''sees nothing in the de- 
tails of the formation of minerals, but precipitations^ cryS' 
tallizations^ and dissolutions.'^ (D'Aubuisson, i, pp. 326-7.) 
He would, therefore, naturally pronounce of this bone, as 
of all other bones, that its 'fibres were originally soft^ 
until, in the shelter of the maternal womb, it acquired ' the 
hardness of a cartilage and then of a hone / that this effect 
' was not produced at once., or in a very short thne^ but ' hy 
degrees y ' that, after birth, it increased in hardness ' by the 
continual addition of ossifying matter^ until it ceased to 
grow at all? 

" Physically true as this reasoning would appear, it 
would nevertheless be morally and really false. Why 
would it be false ? Because it concluded, from mere sen- 
sible phenomena., to the certainty of a fact which would 
not be established by the evidence of sensible phenomena 
alone ; namely, the mode of the first formation of the sub- 
stance of created bone. 

"Let us proceed from animal to vegetable matter ; and 
let us consider the^rs^ created tree^ under which the creat- 
ed man first reposed, and from which he gathered his first 
fruit. That tree must have had a stem or trunk through 
which the juices were conveyed from the root to the fruit, 



248 watson's theological institutes • 

and by which it was able to sustain tha branches upon 
which the fruit grew. 

" If a j)ortion of this created tree now remained, and if 
a section of its wood were to be mingled with other sec- 
tions oi propagated trees, and submitted to the inspection 
and examination of a naturalist, what opinion and judgment 
would its sensible phenomena suggest to him respecting the 
mode of its first formation ; and what would be his con- 
clusion ? If he were unapprized of its true origin, his mind 
would see nothing in its setisihle phenomena but laws of 
lignification y just as the mineral geologist ' sees nothing in 
the details of the formations of primitive rock, but precipi- 
tations, crystallizations, and dissolutions? He would, there- 
fore naturally pronounce of it as of all other sections of 
wood, that its ^ fibres^ when they first issued from the 
seed, * were soft and herbaceous / ' that they ' did not 
suddenly pass to the hardness of perfect wood,"* but ' after 
many years / ' that the hardness of their folds, ' which in- 
dicate the growth of each year,'' was therefore effected only 
' by degrees ; ' and that, * since nature does nothing but by 
a progressive course, it is not surprising that its substance 
acquired its hardness only by little and little? 

" Physically true as the naturalist would here appear to 
reason, yet his reasoning, like that of the anatomist, would 
be morally and really false. And why would it be false ? 
For the same reason, because he concluded from mere sen- 
sible phenomena to the certainty of a fact which could not 
be established by the evidence of sensible phenomena alone ^ 
namely, the 7node of the first formation of the substance of 
created wood. 

" There only now remains to be considered the third or 
Wjineral kingdom of this terrestrial system ; and it appears 
probable to reason and philosophy, \i^ prima facie evidence, 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 249 

that the principle determining the mode of first formations, 
in tic parts of this threefold division of matter, must have 
equal authority in this third part. And, indeed, after the 
closest investigation of the subject, we can discover no 
ground whatever for supposing that this third part is ex- 
empted from the authority of that common principle y or 
that physics are a whit more competent to dogmatize con- 
cerning the mode of first formations, from the evidence of 
phenomena alone, in the m,ineral kingdom, than they have 
been found to be in the animal or vegetable , or to affirm, 
from the indications of the former, that the mode of its 
first formations was more gradual and tardy than those of 
the other two. 

" Let us try this point, by proceeding with our com- 
parison ; and let us consider the first created rock^ as we 
have considered the first created ho7ie and wood ; and let 
us ask, what is rocJc^ in its nature and composition ? * • 

" To this question mineralogy replies : ' By the word 
rock we mean every mineral m,ass of such bulk as to be 
regarded an essential part of the structure of the globe.' 
(D'Aubuisson, i, p. 272.) 'We understand by the word 
mineral, a natural body, inorganic, solid, homogeneous, that 
is, composed of integrant molecules of the same substance.' 
(D'Aubuisson, i, p. 271.) 'We may, perhaps, pronounce 
that a mass is essential, when its displacement would occa- 
sion the downfall of other masses which are placed upon it.' 
(DAubuisson, i, p. 272.) ' Such are those lofty and an- 
cient mountains, the first and m^ost solid hones, as it were 
of this globe — les premiers, les plus solides ossemetis — 
which have merited the name of primitive, because, scorn- 
ing all support and all foreign mixture, they repose always 
upon bases similar to themselves, and comprise within their 
substance no matter but of the same nature.' (Saussure, 
11* 



250 watson's theological msTrruTES 

' Voyages des Alps,' Disc. Prel. pp. 6, 7.) • ' These are the 
primordial mountains which traverse our continents in va- 
rious directions, rising above the clouds, separating the 
basins of rivers one from another ; serving, by means of 
their eternal snov/s, as reservoirs for feeding the springs, 
and. forming in some measure the skeleton^ or, as it were, 
the rough frameworJc of the earth.' (Cuvier, sec. V, p. 39.) 
' These primitive masses are stamped with the character of 
a formation altogether crystalline, as if they were really the 
product of a tranquil precipitation.' (D'Aubuisson, ii, p. 5.) 
" Had the mineral geology contented itself with this 
simple mineralogical statement, we should have thus ar- 
gued concerning the crystalline phenomena of the first mift- 
eral formations, conformably to the principles which we 
have recognized. As the bone of the first man, and the 
wood of the first tree, whose solidity was essential for ' giv- 
ing shape, firmness, and support' to 'their respective sys- 
tems, were not, and could not have been, formed by the 
gradual processes of ossification and lignification^ of which 
they nevertheless must have exhibited the sensible phe- 
nomena, or apparent indications ; so, reason directs us to 
conclude, that primitive rocJc^ whose solidity was equally 
essential for giving shape, firmness, and support to the min- 
eral system of the globe, was not, and could not have been, 
formed by the gradual process oi precipitation and crystalli^ 
zation^ notwithstanding any sensible phenomena, apparently 
indicative of those processes which it may exhibit ; but that 
la the mineral kingdom, as in the animal and vegetable 
kingdoms, the creating agent anticipated^ in his formations 
by an immediate act, effects^ whose sensible phenomena 
could not determine the mode of their formation ; be- 
cause the real mode was in direct contradiction to the ap- 
parent indications of the phenomena. 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 251 

" But the mineral geology has not contented itself with 
that simple mineralogical statement, nor drawn the conclu- 
sion which we have drawn in conformity with the principles 
and in observance of the rules of Newton's philosophy. It 
affirms ' that the characters by which geology is written in 
the book of nature, in which it is to be studied, are miner- 
als ' (D'Aubuisson, Disc. Prel., p. 29) ; and it ' sees nothing ' 
in the book of nature but ''precipitations^ crystallizations^ 
and dissolutions ; ' and therefore, because it sees nothing 
else^ it concludes, without hesitation, from a'ystalline phe- 
.noniena to actual crystallization. Thus, by attempting the 
impossibility of deducing a universal p/rlnciple^ viz., the 
mode of first formation from the analysis of a single in- 
dividual^ viz., mineral matter^ separate from coordinate 
animal and vegetable matter^ and concluding from that de- 
fective analysis to the general law of first formations, it set 
out with inadequate light, and it is no wonder that it ended 
in absolute darkness, for such is its elemental chaos^ and its 
chemical precipitation of this globe : a doctrine so nearly 
resembling the exploded atomic philosophy of the Epicu- 
rean school, that it requires a very close and laborious in- 
spection to discover a single feature by which they may be 
distinguished from each other." 

Here Mr. Watson observes : " This argument is largely 
supported and illustrated in the work ; and thus by refer- 
ring first formations of every kind to an immediate act of 
God, those immense periods of time which geology de- 
mands for its chemical process are rendered unnecessary. 
From first formations Mr. Penu proceeds to oppose the 
notion that the earth has undergone many general revolu- 
tions, and thinks that all geological phenomena may be 
better explained by the Mosaic , record, which confines 
those general revolutions to two. Mr. Peao's course of 



252 watson's theological institijtes 

observation will be seen by the following recapitulation of 
the second and third parts of his work." ("Institutes," 
vol. i, p. 261.) 

Mr. Penn goes on to show, " That this globe, so con- 
structed at its origin, has undergone two and only two 
general changes or revolutions of its substance, each of 
which was caused by the immediate will, intelligence, and 
power of God, exercised upon the work which he had 
formed, and directing the laws or agencies which he had 
ordained within it. 

"That, by the first change or revolution [that of 
gathering the waters into one place and making the dry 
land appear], one portion or division of the surface of the 
globe was suddenly and violently fractured and depressed, 
in order to form, in the first instance, a receptacle or bed 
for the waters [hitherto] universally diffused over the sur- 
face, and to expose the other portion, that it might become 
a dwelling for animal life ; but yet with an ulterior design 
that this first bed of the waters should eventually become 
the chief theatre of animal existence, by the portion first 
exposed experiencing a similar fracture and depression, and 
thus becoming in its turn the receptacle of the same waters, 
which should then be transfused into it, leaving their for- 
mer receptacle void and dry. 

" That this first revolution took place before the exist- 
ence, that is, before the creation of any organized beings. 

" That the sea, collected into this vast fractured cavity 
of the globe surface, continued to occupy it during 1656 
years [from the creation to the deluge], during which long 
period of time its waters acted in various modes, chemical_ 
and mechanical^ upon the several soils and fragments which 
formed its bed, and marine organic matter, animal and 
vegetable, was generated and accumulated in vast abun- 
dance. 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 253 

"That, after the expiration of these 1656 years, it 
pleased God, m, a second revolution, to execute his ulterior 
design, by repeating the amazing operation by which he 
had exposed the first earth, and by the disruption and de- 
pression of the first earth below the level of the bed of the 
first sea, to produce a new bed, into which the waters 
descended from their former bed, leaving it to become the 
theatre of the future generation of mankind. 

" That THIS PRESENT EARTH WAS THAT FORMER BED. 

"That it must, therefore, necessarily exhibit manifest 
and universal evidence of the vicissitudes which it has un- 
dergone, viz., of the vast apparent ruin occasioned by its 
first violent disruption and depression ; of the presence 
and operation of the marine fluid during the long interval 
which succeeded, and of the action and effects of that fluid 
in its ultimate retreat. 

" Within the limits of this general scheme all specula- 
tion must be confined which would aspire to the quality of 
sound geology ; yet vast and sublime is the field which it 
lays open to exercise the intelligence and experience of 
sober and philosophical mineralogy and chemistry. Upon 
this legitimate ground, those many valuable writers who 
have unwarily lent their science to uphold and propagate 
the vicious doctrine of a chaotic geogony, may geologize 
with full security, and may there concur to promote that 
true advancement of natural philosophy which iN^ewton 
holds to be inseparable from a proportionate advancement 
of the moral. They must thus at length succeed in per- 
fecting a true philosophical geology^ which never can exist 
unless the principle of !N^ewton form the foundation^ and 
the relation of Moses the worhing plan.'^'' 

Our own views of the geological theory here given, are 
somewhat correctly expressed in the quotation furnished by 



254 watson's theological institutes 

Mr. Watson from the " scientific journal of great reputa- 
tion," which quotation we have given above. The reader 
will observe that Mr. Penn attributes geological phenomena 
to three distinct causes : first, the creative act of the Al- 
mighty ; second, the gathering together of the waters in 
connection with the work of the six days; third, the gen- 
eral deluge. This view is unquestionably Scriptural, and, 
consequently, perfectly safe ; and that these three events, 
or causes, specified by God himself, are adequate to the 
production of the geological phenomena under considera- 
tion will, we think, be admitted by all : nor can this view 
be considered unreasonable, especially if we recognize God 
as having in view the ultimate end, or ends, specified by 
Mr. Penn; and this we certainly must recognize, for God 
not only created and made all, but he did so with reference 
to specific and loise ends. " God,", says Sir Isaac ISTewton, 
" at the beginning formed all material things of such figures 
and properties as most conduced to the end for which he 
formed them." Whether the present earth was, in part or 
in w^hole, the bed of the waters during the antediluvian pe- 
riod, we do not pretend to say ; certainly the conjecture is 
not an unreasonable one, and, to say the least, it is perfectly 
harmless. As to those who recognize all geological phe- 
nomena as resulting from what are called natural Jaws, 
and see nothing, as Mr. Penn observes, but ^jrecipitatioiis^ 
crystallizations^ dissolutions^ &c., we must be permitted to 
say to them as Jesus Christ said to similar theorists : " Ye 
do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." 
(Matt, xxii, 29.) Indeed, by such theorists God is not rec- 
ognized at all ; their theories are amongst the most god- 
less of which we know anything. Those who recognize the 
inspiration of the Scriptures, and yet adopt such theories, 
try to bend the Scriptures to them ; hence they w^ould have 



Ain) THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 255 

US understand the days of Moses to be periods of inconceiv- 
able length : an interpretation which the sacred narrative 
will never admit of, and which is as dangerous as it is forced ; 
dangerous, because if such a mode of interpretation be al- 
lowed, the Scriptures may be made to mean anything or 
nothing, and a license will thus be given to errorists to bend 
the sacred text as tneir erroneous theories may seem to re- 
quire ; dangerous and forced, because it not only affects the 
law of thfe Sabbath, but is utterly inadmissible, as the fol- 
lowing quotation will show : " Remember the Sabbath day 
to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy 
work : but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Loed thy 
God : in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, 
nor thy daughter, nor thy man servant nor thy maid ser- 
vant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy 
gates : for in six days t];e Loed made heaven and earth, the 
sea and aU that in them is, and rested the seventh day. 
wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hal- 
lowed it." (Exodus XX, 8-11.) 'Now, it is quite obvious 
that the " six days " during which " the Lord made 
heaven and earth," and " the seventh day " upon which 
he is said to have rested, are of equal length with the 
" six days " during which he commands man to work, 
and " the seventh day," or " Sabbath of the Loed," during 
which he commands him to rest, and " not do any work." 
Hence, if the former are periods of inconceivable duration, 
so are the latter, and, if so, God commands man to work 
during six periods of inconceivable duration, and to rest 
during one period equally long ; and this command is en- 
forced by the sanction of the moral law. That is, God 
commands man, on pain of his displeasure, to work, say, 
six millions of years without resting, and then rest one mil- 
lion of years, and " not do any work " during all that pe- 



256 watson's theological institutes 

riod, and his servants and children, yea and his cattle too, 
are to rest with him all that time ; and all this notwithstand- 
ing the fact, that he has limited man's life to threescore 
years and ten! Now, if our geological theorists shrink 
from this conclusion, as of course they will, then they must 
simply give up their whole theory, at least so far as we have 
objected to it, or give up the Bible ; for they cannot pos- 
sibly hold both, seeing their teachings and those of the 
Bible are utterly irreconcilable. We earnestly a^ise them 
to hold to the Bible and give up the geological specula- 
tions ; we believe the world can get along very well with- 
out the latter, but we know it cannot get along without 
the former. 

It will be seen that in geological as in other theories 
which have passed under review, the grand error, which is 
the fruitful source of numerous other errors, consists in ig- 
noring or denying the supernatural^ and attributing every- 
thing to what are called natural laws ; but the Scriptures 
recognize both, and clearly distinguish the one from the 
other. " In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the 
sea and all that in them is." (Genesis ii, 1.) " By the word 
of the Lord were the heavens made ; and all the host of 
them by the breath of his mouth." (Psal. xxxiii, 6.) It 
is clear that the work here specified is the effect of a cause 
purely supernatural. But " the heavens and the earth, and 
all the host of them," being produced as here specified, 
God established what are called natural laws for man's 
guidance, so that he might confidently expect given results 
from given causes, without which he would not know how 
or when to act, or what to expect, as the result of his ac- 
tion. The geological phenomena which we now witness are 
partly supernatural^ and partly natural in their cause. Some 
were produced by the original fiat of the Almighty, and 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 257 

by supernatural interposition since then ; and some have 
been produced according to what are called natural laws ; 
but as the natural and the supernatural productions are 
similar, it is sometimes impossible to distinguish them; 
hence geologists greatly err when they attribute to the 
slow process of natural laws everything that is similar to 
what are known to have been produced in that way. But 
while we recognize geological phenomena as being both 
natural and supernatural in their cause, we recognize the 
salvation of fallen man as being purely supernatural in its 
cause from first to last. " For if there had been a law given 
which could have given Hfe [to fallen man], verily righteous- 
ness should have been by the law." But there was no 
such law revealed before the fall ; the supernatural remedy 
was introduced after the fall, and it is declared to be the 
only remedy the case would admit of; and every contrary 
supposition, or assumption, is declared to be antagonistic 
to this scheme : hence the apostle says, " for if righteous- 
ness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain," that is, 
he died to no purpose if life could have been restored to 
fallen man by previously existing laws. By attending to 
( this distinction between the natural and the supernatural^ 
we will avoid many of the mistakes into which theologians 
and philosophers have fallen. And we may safely affirm 
that, where this distinction is properly recognized, infidelity 
and the various rationalistic and kindred schemes can have 
no existence. 



258 watson's theological institutes 



CHAPTEE IX. 

Having shown that the supernatural phenomena re- 
corded in the Bible are God's seals affixed to its teachings, 
and that they prove those teachings to be what they pro- 
fess to be, we here subjoin " Leslie's Method with Deists," 
which, as an argument to prove that those phenomena 
are facts^ not fiction^ is, we believe, conclusive beyond the 
possibility of successful contradiction. So that when this 
is taken in connection wdth what we have said in the 
preceding pages, we hope it wiU be seen that the JBihle is 
complete in itself^ both in teaching and evidence, 

Leslie'' s Method with Deists: wherein the truth of the 
Christian religion is demonstrated^ in a Utter to a 
friend. 

* CHEISTIANITT DEMONSTEATED. 

Dear Sir: — ^You are desirous, you inform me, to re- 
ceive from me some one topic of reason which shall de- 
monstrate the truth of the Christian religion, and at the 
same time distinguish it from the impostures of Mohammed 
and the heathen deities, that our deists may be brought to 
this test, and be obliged either to renounce their reason, 
and the common reason of mankind, or to admit the clear 
proof, from reason, of the revelation of Christ ; which 



AND THE BIBLE DEFEin)ED. 269 

must be such a proof as no impostor can pretend to, other- 
wise it mil not prove Christianity not to be an imposture. 
And you cannot but imagine, you add, that there must be 
such a proof, because every truth is in itself one : and 
therefore one reason for it, if it be a true reason, must be 
sufficient ; and, if • sufficient, better than many, because 
multiplicity creates confusion, especially in weak judgments. 

Sir, you have imposed a hard task upon me : I wish I 
could perform it. For, though every truth be one, yet our 
sight is so feeble that we cannot always come to it directly, 
but by many inferences and layings of things together. 
But I think that in the case before us there is such a proof 
as you desire, and I will set it down as shortly and as 
plainly as I can. 

I suppose, then, that the truth of the Christian doctrines 
will be sufficiently evinced if the matters of fact recorded 
of Christ in the gospels are proved to be true ; for his mir- 
acles, if true, established the truth of what he dehvered. 
The same may be said with regard to Moses. If he led the 
children of Israel through the Red Sea, and did such other 
wonderful things as are recorded of him in the book of 
Exodus, it must necessarily follow that he was sent by God ; 
these being the strongest evidences we can require, and 
which every deist will confess he would admit if he himself 
had witnessed their performance. So- that the stress of 
this cause will depend upon the proof of these matters of 
fact. 

With a view, therefore, to this proof, I shall proceed, 

I. To lay down such marks, as to the truth of matters 
of fact in general, that, where they all meet, such matters 
of fact cannot be false : and, 

II. To show that they all do meet in the matters of 
fact of Moses and of Christ, and do not meet in those 



260 watson's theological institutes 

reported of Mohammed and of the heathen deities, nor 
can possibly meet in any imposture whatsoever. 
I. The marks are these : — 

1. That the fact be such as men's outward senses can 
judge of: 

2. That it be performed puhlicly^ in the presence of 
witnesses : 

3. That there ^iQ public monuments and actions kept up 
in memory of it : and 

4. That such monuments and actions shall be estab- 
lished, and commence, at the time of the fact. 

The first two of these marks make it impossible for any 
false fact to be imposed upon men at the time when it was 
said to be done, because every man's senses would contra- 
dict it. For example : suppose I should pretend that, yes- 
terday, I divided the Thames, in the presence of all the 
people of London, and led the whole city over to South- 
wark on dry land, the waters standing like walls on each 
side : it would be morally impossible for me to convince 
the people of London that this was true, when every man, 
woman, and child could contradict me, and affirm that they 
had not seen the Thames so divided, nor been led over to 
Southwark on dry land. I take it, then, for granted (and, 
I apprehend, with the allowance of all the deists in the 
world) that no such imposition could be put uj)on mankind 
at the time when such matter of fact was said to be done. 

**But," it may be urged, "the fact might be invented 
when the men of that generation in which it was said to 
be done were all past and gone ; and the creduhty of after 
ages might be induced to believe that things had been per- 
formed in earlier times which had not ! " 

From this, the two latter marks secure us as rc^uch as 
the first two in the former case. For whenever such a fact 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 261 

was invented, if it was stated that not only public monu- 
ments of it remained, but likewise that public actions or 
observances had been kept up in memory of it ever since, 
the deceit must be detected by no such monuments appear- 
ing, and by the experience of every man, woman,- and 
child, who must know that no such actions or observances 
had ever taken place. For example : suppose I should now 
fabricate a story of something done a thousand years ago. 
I might perhaps get a few persons to believe me ; but if I 
were farther to add, that from that day to this every man, 
at the age of twelve years, had a joint of his httle finger cut 
off in memory of it, and that ofcourse every man then living 
actually wanted a joint of that finger, and vouched this in- 
stitution in confirmation of its truth — it would be morally 
impossible for me to gain credit in such a case, because 
every man then living would contradict me as to the cir- 
cumstance of cutting off a joint of the finger ; and that, 
being an essential part of my original matter of fact, must 
prove the whole to be false. 

n. Let us now come to the second point, and show that 
all these marks' do meet in the matters of fact of Moses 
and of Christ, and do not meet in those reported of 
Mohammed and of the heathen deities, nor can possibly 
meet in any imposture whatsoever. 

As to Moses, he, I take it for granted, could not have 
persuaded six hundred thousand men that he had brought 
them out of Egypt by the Red Sea, fed them forty years 
with miraculous manna, &c., if it had not been true : be- 
cause the senses of every man who was then alive would 
have contradicted him. So that here are the first two 
marks. 

For the same reason it would have been equally impos- 
sible for him to have made them receive his five books as 



262 watson's theological institutes 

true which related all these as done before their eyes, if 
they had not been so done. Observe how positively he 
speaks to them : " And know you this day, for I speak not 
with your children, which have not known, and which have 
not seen the chastisement of the Lord your God, his great- 
ness, his mighty hand, and his stretched-out arm, and his 
miracles ; but your eyes have seen all the great acts of 
the Lord which he did." (Deut. xi, 2-7.) Hence we must 
admit it to be impossible that these books, if written by 
Moses in support of an imposture, could have been put 
upon the people who were alive at the time when such 
things were said to be done. 

" But they might have been written," it maj^ be urged, 
" in some age after Moses, and published as his ! " 

To this I reply that, if it were so, it was impossible they 
should have been received as such ; because they speak of 
themselves as dehvered by Moses, and kept in the ark from 
his time (Deut. xxxi, 24-26), and state that a copy of them 
was likewise deposited in the hands of the king, " that he 
might learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words 
of this law and these statutes, to do them." (Deut. xvii, 
19.) Here these books expressly represent themselves as 
being not only the civil history, but also the established 
municipal law of the Jews, binding the king as well as the 
people. Li whatever age, therefore, after Moses they 
might have been forged it was impossible they should have 
gained any credit, because they could not4;hen have been 
found either in the ark, or with the king, or anywhere else ; 
and, when they were first published, every body must know 
that they had never heard of them before. 

And they could still less receive them as their book of 
statutes, and the standing law of the land, by which they 
had all along been governed. Could any man, at this day, 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 263 

invent a set of acts of parliament for England, and make 
it pass upon the nation as the only book of statutes which 
they had ever known ? As impossible was it for these 
books, if written in any age after Moses, to have been re- 
ceived for what they declare themselves to be, that is, the 
municipal law of the Jews ; and for any man to have per- 
suaded that people that they had owned them as their code 
of statutes from the time of Moses, that is, before they had 
ever heard of them ! ]!!^ay, more : they must instantly 
have forgotten their former laws if they could receive these 
books as such ; and as such only could they receive them, 
because such they vouched themselves to be. Let me ask 
the deists but. one short question : " Was a book of sham 
laws ever palmed upon any nation since the world began ? " 
If not, with what face can they say this of the law books 
of the Jews ? Why will they affirm that of them which 
they admit never to have happened in any other instance ? 
But they must be still more unreasonable, for the books 
of Moses have an ampler demonstration of their truth than 
even other law books have ; as they not only contain the 
laws themselves, but give ^n historical account of their 
institution and regular fulfilment : of the passover, for in- 
stance, in memory of their supernatural protection upon 
the slaying of the first-born of Egypt ; the dedication of 
the first-born of Israel, both of man and beast ; the pres- 
ervation of Aaron's rod, which budded, of the pot of 
manna, and of the brazen serpent, which remained till the 
days of Hezekiah. (2 Kings, xviii, 4, &c.) And, besides these 
memorials of particular occurrences, there were other sol- 
emn observances, in general memory of their deliverance 
out of Egypt, &c., as their annual expiations, their new 
moons, their sabbaths, and their ordinary sacrifices ; so 
that there were yearly, monthly, weekly, and daily recog- 



264 WATSON 's THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES 

nitions of these things. The same books likewise farther 
inform us that the tribe of Levi were appointed and conse- 
crated by God as his ministers, by whom alone these insti- 
tutions were to be celebrated : that it was death for any 
others to approach the altar ; that their high priest wore 
a brilliant mitre and magnificent robes, with the miraculous 
Urim and Thummim in his breastplate ; that at his word 
all the people were to go out, and to come in ; that these 
Levites were also their judges, even in all civil causes, &c. 

Hence, too, therefore, in whatever age after Moses they 
might have been forged, it was impossible they should have 
gained any credit, unless indeed the fabricators could have 
made the whole nation believe, ir^ spite of their invariable 
esUperience to the contrary^ that they had received these 
books long before from their fathers ; had been taught 
them when they were children, and had taught them to 
their own children ; that they had been circumcised them- 
selves, and had circumcised their families, and uniformly 
observed their whole minute detail of sacrifices and cere- 
monies; that they had never eaten any swine's flesh, or 
other prohibited meats ; that they had a splendid taber- 
nacle, with a regular priesthood to administer in it, con- 
fined to one particular tribe, and a superintendent high 
priest, whose death alone could deliver those that had fled 
to the cities of refuge; that these priests were their ordi- 
nary judges, even in civil matters, &c. But this would 
surely have been impossible if none of these things had 
been practised ; and it would consequently have been im- 
possible to circulate as true a set of books which affirmed 
that they had practised them, and upon that practice rested 
their own pretensions to acceptance. So that here are the 
two latter marks. 

" But," to advance to the utmost degree of supposition, 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 266 

it may be urged, " These things might have been practised 
prior to this alleged forgery ; and those books only deceived 
the nation by making them believe that they were practised 
in memory of such and such occurrences as were then in- 
vented ! " 

In this hypothesis, however groundless, the same impos- 
sibihties press upon our notice as before: "for it implies 
that the Jews had previously kept these observances in 
memory of nothing, or without knowing whj they kept 
them ; whereas, in all their particulars, they strikingly ex- 
press their original ; as the passover, instituted in memory 
of God's passing over the children of the Israelites when he 
slew the first-born of Egypt, &c. ♦ 

Let us admit, however contrary both to probability and 
to matter of fact, that they did not know why they kept 
these observances ; yet was it possible to persuade them 
that they were kept in memory of something which they 
had never heard of before? For example: suppose I 
should now forge some romantic story of strange things 
done a long while ago ; and, in confirmation of this, should 
endeavor to convince the Christian world that they had 
regularly, from that period to this, kept holy the first day 
of the week in memory of such or such a man : a Caesar, or 
a Mohammed ; and had all been baptized in his name, and 
sworn by it upon the very book which I had then fabri- 
cated, and which of course they had never seen before in 
their public courts of judicature ; that this book likewise 
contained their law, civil and ecclesiastical, which they had 
ever since his time acknowledged, and no other: — ^I ask 
any deist whether he thinks it possible that such a cheat 
could be received as the gospel of Christians, or not ? The 
same reason holds with regard to the books of Moses, and 
must hold with regard to every book which contains mat- 

12 



266 watson's theological institutes 

ters of fact accompanied by the abovementioned four 
marks: for these marks, together, secure mankind from 
imposition, with regard to any false fact, as well in after 
ages as at the time when it was said to be done. 

Let me produce, as another and a familiar illustration, 
the Stonehenge of Salisbury Plain. Almost everybody has 
seen or heard of it ; and yet nobody knows by whom or in 
memory of what it was set up. 

Now, suppose I should write a book to-morrow, and 
state in it that these huge stones were erected by a Caesar 
or a Mohammed, in memory of such and such of their 
actions ; and should further add, that this book was written 
at th^ time when those actions were performed, and by the 
doers themselves, or by eye-witnesses ; and had been con- 
stantly received as true, and quoted by authors of the 
greatest credit in regular succession ever since ; that it was 
well known in England, and even enjoined by act of parlia- 
ment to be taught our children, and that Ave accordingly 
did teach it our children, and had been taught it ourselves 
when we were children ; — ^would this, I demand of any deist, 
pass current in England ? Or, rather, should not I, or any 
other person who might insist upon its reception, instead 
of being believed, be considered insane ? 

Let us compare, then, this rude structure with the 
Stonehenge, as I may call it, or " twelve stones " set up at 
Gilgal, Josh. iv. 6. It is there said that the reason why 
they were set up was, that when the children of the Jews, 
in after ages, should ask their meaning, it should be told 
them, chap, iv, 20-22. And the thing in memory of which 
they were set up, the passage over Jordan, was such as 
could not possibly have been imposed upon that people 
at the time when it was said to be done : it was not less 
miraculous, and from the previous notice, preparations, 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 267 

and other striking circumstances of its performance, chap, 
iii, 5, 15, stUl more unassailable by the petty cavils of infidel 
sophistry, than their passage through the Red Sea. 

Isow, to form our argument, let us suppose that there 
never was any such thing as that passage over Jordan; 
that these stones at GUgal had been set up on some un- 
known occasion ; and that some designing man, in an after 
age, invented this book of Joshua; affirmed that it was 
written at the time of that imaginary event by Joshua 
himself, and adduced this pile of stones as a testimony of 
its truth : — would not everybody say to him, " We know 
this pUe very well, but we never before heard of this reason 
for it, nor of this book of Joshua. Where has it lain con- 
cealed all this while? and where and how came you, after 
so long a period, to find it ? Besides, it informs us that 
this passage over Jordan was solemnly directed to be 
taught our cl^ldren from age to age ; and, to that end, 
that they were always to be instructed in the meaning of 
this particular monument ; but we were never taught it 
ourselves when we were children, nor did we ever teach it 
to our children. And it is in the highest degree improbable 
that such an emphatic ordinance should have been forgotten 
during the continuance of so remarkable a pile of stones, 
set up expressly for the purpose of preserving its remem- 
brance." 

If, then, for these reasons, no such fabrication could be 
put upon us as to the stones in Salisbury Plain, how much 
less could it succeed as to the stonage at Gilgal ? If, where 
we are ignorant of the true origin of a mere naked monu- 
ment, such a sham origin cannot be imposed, how much less 
practicable would it be to impose upon us in actions and 
observances which we celebrate in memory of what we 
actually know ; to make us forget what we have regularly 



268 watson's theological institutes 

commemorated; and to persuade us that we have con- 
stantly kept such and such institutions with reference to 
something which we never heard of before ; that is, that 
we knew something before we knew it ! And if we find it 
thus impossible to practise deceit, even in cases which have 
not the above four marks, how much more impossible must 
it be that any deceit should be practised in cases in which 
all these four marks meet ! 

In the matters of fact of Christ likewise, as well as in 
those of Moses, these four marks are to be found. The 
reasoning, indeed, which has already been advanced with 
respect to the Old Testament, is generally applicable to the 
New. The miracles of Christ, hke those of Moses, were 
such as men's outward senses could judge of, and were per- 
formed publicly^ in the presence of those to whom the 
history of them, contained in the gospel, was addressed. 
And it is related that " about three thousand " at one time, 
Acts ii, 41, and about "five thousand" at another, iv, 4, 
were converted in consequence of what they themselves 
saw and heard, in matters where it was impossible that they 
should have been deceived. Here, therefore, were the first 
two marks. 

And with regard to the latter two, baptism and the 
Lord's supper were instituted as memorials of certain 
things, not in after ages, but at the time when these things 
were said to be done; and have been strictly observed, 
from that time to this, without interruption. Christ him- 
self also ordained apostles, &c., to preach and administer his 
ordinances, and to govern his church, " even unto the end 
of the world." Now the Christian ministry is as notorious 
a matter of fact among us as the setting apart of the tribe 
of Levi was among the Jews ; and as the era and object of 
their appointment are part of the gospel narrative, if that 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 269 

narratiye had been a fiction of some subsequent age at the 
time of its fabrication no such order of men could have 
been found, which would have effectually given the lie to 
the whole story. And the truth of the matters of fact of 
Christ being no otherwise asserted than as there were at 
the. time (whenever the deist will suppose the gospel to 
have been fabricated) public ordinances and a public min- 
istry of his institution to dispense them, and it being im- 
possible, upon this hypothesis, that there could be any such 
things then in existence, we must admit it to be equally 
impossible that the forgery should have been successful. 
Hence it was as impossible to deceive mankind, in respect 
to these matters of fact, by inventing them in after ages, as 
at the time when they were said to be done. 

The matters of fact reported of Mohammed and of the 
heathen deities do all want some of these four marks, by 
which the certainty of facts is established. Mohammed 
himself, as he tells us in his Koran (vi, &c.), pretended to 
no miracles ; and those which are commonly related of him 
pass, even among his followers, for ridiculous legends, and 
as such are rejected by their scholars and philosophers. 
They have not either of the first two marks ; for his con- 
verse with the moon, his night journey from Mecca to 
Jerusalem, and thence to heaven, &c., were not performed 
before any witnesses, nor was the tour indeed of a nature 
to admit human attestation ; and to the two latter they do 
not even affect to advance any claim. 

The same may be affirmed, with little variation, of the 
stories of the heathen deities : of Mercury's stealing sheep, 
Jupiter's transforming himself into a bull, &c., besides the 
absurdity of such degrading and profligate adventures. 
And accordingly we find that the more enlightened pagans 
themselves considered them as febles involving a mystical 



270 watson's theological institutes 

meaning, of which several of their writers have endeavor- 
ed to give lis the explication. It is true these gods had 
their priests, their feasts, their games, and other public 
ceremonies; but all these want the fourth mark, of com- 
mencing at the time when the things which they commem- 
orate were said to have been done. Hence they cannot 
secure mankind in subsequent ages from imposture, as they 
furnish no inj;ernal means of detection at the period of the 
forgery. The Bacchanalia^ for example, and other heathen 
festivals, were established long after the events to which 
they refer ; and the priests of Juno, Mars, &c., were not 
ordained by those imaginary deities, but appointed by 
others in some after age, and are therefore no evidence to 
the truth of their preternatural achievements. 

To apply what has been said : 

"We may challenge all the deists in the world to show 
any fabulous action accompanied by these four marks. The 
thing is impossible. The histories of the Old and New 
Testaments never could have been received if they had 
not been true ; because the priesthoods of Levi and of 
Christ, the observance of the Sabbath, the passover, and 
circumcision, and the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's 
supper, &c., are there represented as descending uninter- 
ruptedly from the times of their respective institution. And 
it would have been as impossible to persuade men in after 
ages that they had been circumcised or baptized, and cele- 
brated passovers, Sabbaths, and other ordinances, under the 
ministration of a certain order of priests, if they had done 
none of those things, as to make them believe at the time, 
without any real foundation, that they had gone through 
seas on dry land, seen the dead raised, &c. But without 
such a persuasion it was impossible that either the law or 
the gospel could have been received. And the truth of the 



AUTD ^HE BIBLE DEFENDED. 271 

matters of fact of each being no otherwise asserted than as 
such public ceremonies had been previously practised, their 
certainty is established upon the full cozstviction of the 

SEXSES OF SIANKIND. 

I do not say that everything which wants these four 
marks is false; but that everything which has them all 
must be true. 

I can have no doubt that there was such a man as Julius 
Caesar ; that he conquered at Pharsalia, and was killed in 
the senate house, though neither his actions nor his assassi- 
nation be commemorated by any public observances. But 
this shows that the matters of fact of Moses and of Christ 
have come down to us better certified than any other what- 
soever. And yet our deists, who would consider any one 
as hopelessly irrational that should offer to deny the exist- 
ence of Caesar, value themselves as the only men of profound 
sense and judgment for ridiculing the histories of Moses 
and of Christ, though guarded by infallible marks, which 
that of CaBsar wants. 

Besides, the nature of the subject would of itself lead 
to a more minute examination of the one than of the other : 
for of what consequence is it to me, or to the world, whether 
there ever was such a man as Csesar : whether he conquered 
at Pharsalia, and was killed in the senate house, or not ? 
But our eternal welfare is concerned m the truth of what is 
recorded in the Scriptures ; whence they would naturally 
be more narrowly scrutinized when proposed for acceptance. 

How unreasonable, then, is it to reject matters of fact so 
important, so sifted, and so attested; and yet to think it 
absurd, even to madness, to deny other matters of fact, 
which have not the thousandth part of their evidence, have 
had comparatively little investigation, and are of no con- 
sequence at all ! 



272 watson's theological institutes 



THE TRUTH OF CHKISTIANITY DEMONSTEATED. 

To the preceding four marks, which are common to the 
matters of fact of Moses and of Christ, I now proceed to 
subjoin four additional marks ; the three last of which, no 
matter of fact, how true soever, either has had, or can have, 
except that of Christ. 

This will obviously appear if it be considered, 

5. That the book which relates the facts contains like- 
wise the laics of the people to whom it belongs : 

6. That Christ was previously announced, for that very 
period, by a long train of prophecies ; and, 

v. StiU more pecuUarly prefigured by types, both of a 
circumstantial and personal nature, from the earliest ages ; 
and, 

8. That the facts of Christianity are such as to make it 
impossible for either their relators or hearers to believe 
them, if false, without supposing a universal deception of 
the senses of manJcind. 

l^\iQ fifth marJc, which has been subordinately discussed 
in the former part of this tract in such a manner as to su- 
persede the necessity of dwelling upon it in this, renders it 
impossible for any one to have imposed such a book upon 
any people. For example : suppose I should forge a code 
of laws for Great Britain, and publish it next term ; could 
I hope to persuade the judges, lawyers, and people, that 
this was their genuine statute book, by which all their causes 
had been determined in the public courts for so many centu- 
ries past ? Before they could be brought to this, they must 
totally forget their established laws, which they had so la- 
boriously committed to memory, and so familiarly quoted 
in every day's practice, and beheve that this new book, 
which they had never seen before, was that old book which 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 273 

had been pleaded so long in Westminster Hall, which had 
been so often printed, and of which the originals are now 
so carefully preserved in the Tower. 

This applies strongly to the books ol* Moses, in which, 
not only the history of the Jews, but likewise their whole 
law,'secular and ecclesiastical, was contained. And though, 
from the early extension and destined universahty of the 
Christian system, it could not, without unnecessary confu- 
sion, furnish a uniform civil code to all its various followers, 
who were already under the government of laws in some 
degree adapted to their respective climates and characters, 
yet was *t intended as the spiritual guide of the new church. 
And in this respect this mark is still stronger with regard to 
the gospel than even to the books of Moses ; inasmuch as it 
is easier (however hard) to imagine the substitution of an 
entire statute-book in one particular nation, than that all 
the nations of Christendom should have unanimously con- 
spired in the forgery. But without such a conspiracy such 
a forgery could never have succeeded, as the gospel univer- 
sally formed a regular part of their daily public offices. 

But I hasten to the sixth mark^ namely, prophecy. 

The great fact of Christ's coming was previously an- 
nounced to the Jews^ in the Old Testament, " by all the 
holy prophets which have been since^ the world began," 
Luke i, 70. 

The first promise upon the subject was made to Adam 
immediately after the fall, Gen. iii, 15. Compare Col. ii, 15, 
and Heb. ii. 14. 

He was again repeatedly promised to Abraham, Gen. 
xii, 3 ; xviii, 18, and xxii, 18; Gal. iii, 16; to Isaac, Gen. 
xxvi, 4 ; and to Jacob, Gen. xxviii, 14. 

Jacob expressly prophesied of him under the appellation 
of " Shiloh,'' or Himi that was to he sent. Gen. xUx. 10. 
12* . 



274 watson's theological institutes 

Balaam, also, with the voice of inspiration, pronounced him. 
" the Star of Jacob and the sceptre of Israel," Num. xxiv, 
1 7. Moses spoke of him as One " greater than himself," 
Deut. xviii, 15, 18, 19 ; Acts iii, 22 ; and Daniel hailed his 
arrival under the name of "Messiah the Prince," chap, 
ix, 25. 

It was foretold that he should be born of a virgin, Isa. 
vii, 14; in the city of Bethlehem, Micah v, 2 ; of the seed 
of Jesse, Isa. xi, 1, 10 ; that he should lead a life of poverty 
and suffering, Psa. xxii ; inflicted upon him, '' not for him- 
self," Dan. ix, 26, but for the sins of others, Isa. liii; and, 
after a short confinement in the grave, should rise again, 
Psa. xvi, 10; Acts ii, 27, 31, and xiii, 35, 37; that he 
*' should sit upon the throne of David forever," and be 
called " the mighty God," Isa. ix, 6, 7 ; " the Lord our 
righteousness," Jer. xxxiii, 16; " Immanuel, that is, God 
with us," Isa. vii. 14; Matt, i, 23 ; and by David himself, 
whose son he was according to the flesh, " Lord," Psa. ex, 
1 ; applied to Christ by himself. Matt, xxii, 44, and by Pe- 
ter, Acts ii, 34. 

The time of his incarnation was to be before " the scep- 
tre should depart from Judah," Gen. xlix, 10 ; during the 
continuance of the second temple. Hag. ii, 7, 9, and within 
seventy weeks, or 490 days, that is, according to the con- 
stant interpretation of prophecy, 490 years from its erection, 
Dan. ix, 24. 

From these, and many other predictions, the coming of 
Christ was at all times the general expectation of the Jews, 
and fully matured at the time of his actual advent, as may 
be inferred from the number of false messiahs who ajopeared 
about that period. 

That he was likewise the expectation of the Gentiles (in 
conformity to the prophecies of Gen. xxix, 10, and Hag. ii, 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 275 

7, where the terms " people " and " nations " denote the 
heathen world), is evinced by the coming of the wise men 
from the East, &c. ; a story which would, of course, have 
been contradicted by some of the individuals so disgrace- 
fully concerned in it, if the fact of their arrival, and the 
consequent massacre of the infants in and about Bethlehem 
had not been fresh in every one's memory : by them, for 
instance, who afterward suborned false witnesses against 
Christ, and gave large money to the soldiers to conceal, if 
possible, the event of his resurrection ; or them who, in 
still later days, everywhere zealously " spake against " the 
tenets and practices of his rising church. 

All over the East, indeed, there was a general tradition, 
that about that time a king of the Jews icould he horn^ 
who should govern the whole earth. This prevailed so 
strongly at Rome, a few months before the birth of Augus- 
tus, that the senate made a decree to expose all the chil- 
dren born that year ; but the execution of it was eluded by 
a trick of some of the senators, who, from the pregnancy 
of their wives, were led to hope that they might be the 
fathers of the promised prince. Its currency is also re- 
corded with a remarkable identity of phrase, by the pens 
of Suetonius and Tacitus. Now, that in this there was no 
collusion between the Chaldeans, Romans, and Jews, is suf- 
ficiently proved by the desperate methods suggested, or 
carried into effect, for its discomfiture. Nor, in fact, is it 
practicable for whole nations of contemporary (and still 
less, if possible, for those of successive) generations to con- 
cert a story perfectly harmonious in all its minute accom- 
paniments of time, place, manner, and other circumstances. 

In addition to the above general predictions of the com- 
ing, life, death, and resurrection of Christ, there are others 
which foretell still more strikingly several particular inci- 



276 watson's theological institutes 

dents of the gogpel narrative; instances unparalleled in the 
whole range of history, and which could have been fore- 
seen by God alone. They were certainly not foreseen by 
the human agents concerned in their execution, or they 
would never have contributed to the fulfilment of prophe- 
cies referred even by themselves to the Messiah, and there- 
fore verifying the divine mission of him whom they cruci- 
fied as an impostor. 

Observe, then, how literally many of these predictions 
were fulfilled. For example: read Psa. Ixix, 21, "They 
gave me gall to eat, and vinegar to drink ; " and compare 
Matt, xxvii, 34, "They gave him vinegar to drink, mingled 
with gall." Again, it is said, Psa. xxii, 16-18, "They 
pierced my hands and my feet. They part my garments 
among them, and cast lots upon my vesture ; " * as if it had 

* The soldiers did not tear his coat, because it was witJiout seam, woven 
from the top throughout^ and therefore they cast lots for it. But this was 
entirely accidental. With the passage in the Psalms, as Romans, they 
were not likely to be acquainted. The same remark apphes to the next 
instance, from Zechariah. 

And here it may be suggested (in reply to those who insidiously mag- 
nify "the power of chance, the ingenuity of accommodation, and the in- 
dustry of research," as chiefly supporting the credit of obscure prophecy), 
that greater plainness would have enabled wicked men, as free agents, to 
prevent its accomplishment, when obviously directed against themselves. 
The Jews not understanding what Christ meant by his " lifting up," John 
viii, 28 ; xii, 32, 33 ; and not knowing that he had foretold his crucifixion 
to his apostles. Matt, xx, 19, instead of finally stoning him, — the death 
appointed by their law. Lev. xxiv, 16, for blasphemy. Matt, xxvi, 65 ; 
more than once menaced against the Saviour, John viii, 59 ; x, 33 ; and 
actually inflicted upon Stephen, Acts vii, 58, for that oflfeuce, — uncon- 
sciously delivered him to the predicted Roman cross. Again : the piercing 
of his side was no part of the Roman sentence, but merely to ascertain his 
being dead, previously to taking him down from the cross; "that the 
body might not remain there on the Sabbath day," which commenced that 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 27T 

been written after^ John xix, 23, 24. It is predicted, like- 
wise, Zech. xii, 10, "They shall look upon me whom they 
have pierced ; " and we are told, John xix, 34, that " one of 
the soldiers with a spear pierced his side." 

Compare also Psa. xxii, V, 8, " All they that see me 
laugh me to scorn: they shoot out their Hps, and shake 
their heads, saying, He trusted in God that he would de- 
Hver him : let him deliver him if he wiU have him," with 
Matt, xxvii, 39, 41, 43, " And they that passed by reviled 
him, wagging their heads, and saying. Come down from 
the cross. Likewise also the chief priests, mocking him> 
with the scribes and elders, said. He trusted in God ; let 
him dehver him now, if he will have him ; for he said, I am 
the Son of God." His very price, and the mode of laying 
out the money, previously specified, Zech. ix, 13, are his- 
torically stated by Matthew, in perfect correspondence 
with the prophet, chap, xxvii, 6, V. And his riding into 
Jerusalem upon an ass, predicted, Zech. ix, 9, and referred 
by one of the most learned of the Jewish rabbis to the 
Messiah, is recorded by the same inspired historian, chap, 
xxi, 9. Lastly, it was foretold that " he should make his 
grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death," Isa. 
liii, 9 ; or, as Dr. Lowth translates the passage, " His grave 
was appointed with the wicked, but with the rich man was 
his tomb ; " which prediction was precisely verified by the 
very improbable incidents of his being crucified hetioeen two 
thieves^ Matt, xxvii, 38, and afterward laid in the tomb of 
the rich man o/* Arimathea, Matt, xxvii, 57, 60. 

Thus do the prophecies of the Old Testament, without 
variation or ambiguity, refer to the person and character 

evening, a few hours after the crucifixion. From his early giving up the 
ghost ^ however, it was not necessary that " a hone of him sho'uld he broken," 
Exod. xii, 46 ; Num. ix, 12 ; Psa. xxxiv, 20 ; like those of the two thieves, 
his fellow sufiferers, John xix, 32, 36. 



278 watson's theological institutes 

of Christ. His own predictions in the 'New demand a few 
brief observations. 

Those relating to the destruction of Jerusalem, which 
S23ecified that it should be " laid even with the ground," 
and "not one stone be left upon another," Luke ix, 44, 
" before that generation passed," Matt, xxiv, 34, were ful- 
filled in a most surprisingly.literal manner, the very founda- 
tions of the temple being ploughed up by Turnus Rufus. 
In another remarkable prophecy he announced the many 
false messiahs that should come after him, and the ruin in 
which their followers should be involved. Matt, xxvi, 25, 
26. That great numbers actually assumed that holy char- 
acter before the final fall of the city, and led the people into 
the wilderness to their destruction, we learn from Jose- 
phus, Antiq. Jud. xviii, 12 ; xx, 6, and B. J. viii, 31. Nay, 
such was their wretched infatuation, that under this delu- 
sion they rejected the offers of Titus, who courted them to 
peace, Id. B. J. vii, 12. 

It will be sufficient barely to mention his foretelling the 
di§^persion of that unhappy nation, and the triumph of his 
gospel over the gates of liell^ under every possible disad- 
vantage, — 'himself low and despised, his immediate asso- 
ciates only twelve, and those illiterate and unpolished, and 
his adversaries the allied powers, prejudices, habits, inter- 
ests, and apjjetites of mankind. 

But the seventh 7narh is still more peculiar, if possible, 
to Christ than even that of prophecy. For whatever may 
be weakly pretended with regard to the oracular predic- 
tions of Delphi or Dodona, the heathens never affected to 
prefigure any future event by types or resemblances of the 
fact, consisting of analogies either in individuals, or in sen- 
sible institutions directed to be continued, till the antitype 
itself should make its appearance. 



AKD THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 279 

These types, iu the instance of Christ, were of a twofold 
nature, circu7nsta}iUal and 2^ersonal. 

Of the formev kind (not to notice the general rite of 
sacrifice) may be produced, as examples, 1. Thepassover^ 
appointed in memory of that great night when the destroy- 
ing angel, who slew all " the first-born of Egypt," passed 
over those houses uj)on whose door-posts the blood of the 
paschal lamb was sprinkled, and directed to be eaten with 
what the apostle, 1 Cor. v, 7, 8, calls " the unleavened 
bread of sincerity and truth." 2. The annual expiation^ 
in two respects : first, as the high-priest entered into the 
holy of holies (representing heaven, Exod. xxv, 40 ; Heb. 
ix, 24) with the blood of the sacrifice, whose body was 
burned without the camp ; " wherefore Jesus also, that he 
might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered 
without the gate," Heb. xiii, 12 ; and " after he had offered 
one sacrifice for sin, for ever sat down at the right hand of 
God," Heb. x, 12 ; and, secondly, as " all the iniquity of 
the children of Israel was put upon the head " of the scape 
goat. Lev. xvi, 21. 3. The brazen serpent, by looking up 
to which the people were cured of the stings of the fiery 
serpents ; and whose " lifting up " was, by Christ himself, 
interpreted as emblematical of his being lifted up on the 
cross, John lii, 14. 4. The manna, which represented "the 
bread of life, that came down from heaven," John vi, 31- 
35. 5. TJie rock, whence the waters flow^ed, to supply 
drink in the wilderness ; " and that rock was Christ," 1 
Cor. X, 4. 6. The Sabbath, " a shadow of Christ," Col. ii, 
16, 17 : and, as a figure of his eternal rest, denominated " a 
sign of the perpetual covenant," Exod. xxxi, 16, 17 ; Ezek. 
XX, 12, 20. And, lastly, to omit others, the temple, where 
alone the shadowy sacrifices were to be offered, because 
Christ, " the body," was to be offered there himself. 



280 watson's theological msTmiTES 

Of personal types^ likewise, I shall confine myself to 
sucli as are so considered in the New Testament. 

1. Adam, between whom and Christ a striking series 
of relations is remarked, Rom. v, 12-21, and 1 Cor. xv, 45- 
49. 2. Noah, who was " saved by water ; the like figure 
whereunto, even baptism, doth now save us, by the resur- 
rection of Jesus Christ," 1 Pet. iii, 20, 21. 3. MelchisedeJc, 
king of Salem, who was made " like unto the Son of God, 
a priest continually," Heb. vii, 3. 4. Abraham, " the heir 
of the world," Rom. iv, 13, "in whom all the nations of the 
earth are blessed," Gen. xviii, 18. 5. Isaac, in his birth 
and intended sacrifice, whence also his father received him 
in a figure, Heb. xi, 19, that is, of the resurrection of Christ. 
He, too, was the promised seed, Gen. xxi, 12, and Gal. iii, 
16, in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed, 
Gen. xxii, 18. 6. Jacob, in his vision of the ladder. Gen. 
xxviii, 12, and John 1, 51, and his wrestling with the 
angel ; whence he, and after him the church, obtained the 
name of Israel, Gen. xxxii, 24, and Matt, xi, 21. The Gen- 
tile world also, like Jacob, gained the blessing and heirship 
from their elder brethren, the Jews. '1. Moses, Dent, xviii, 
18, and John i, 45, in redeeming the children of Israel out 
of Egypt. 8. Joshua, called also Jesus, Heb. iv, 8, in ac- 
quiring for them the possession of the Holy Land, and as 
lieutenant to the " captain of the host of the Lord," Josh. 
V. 14. 9. David, Psa. xvi, 10, and Acts ii, 25-35, upon 
whose throne Christ is said to sit, Isa. ix, 7, and by whose 
name he is frequently designated, Hos. iii, 5 <Sc., in his pas- 
toral, regal, and prophetical capacity. 10. Jonah, in his 
dark imprisonment of three days, applied by Christ to him- 
self, Matt, xii, 40. 

The eighth m,ar1c is, that the facts of Christianity are 
such as to make it impossible for either the relaters or the 



AND THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 281 

hearers to believe them, "if false, without supposing a uni- 
versal deception of the senses of mankind. 

For they were related by the doers, or by eye-witnesses, 
to those who themselves likewise either were or might 
have been present, and undoubtedly knew many that were " 
present, at th^ performance. To this circumstance, in- 
deed, both Christ and his apostles both often appeal. And 
they were of such a nature as wholly to exclude every 
chance of imposition. What juggler could have given 
sight to him " that was born blind ; " have fed five thou- 
sand hungry guests with " five loaves and two fishes ; " or 
have raised one, who had been " four days buried," from 
his grave ? 

When, then, we add to this, that none of the Jewish or 
Roman persecutors of Christianity, to whom its first teach- 
ers firequently referred as witnesses of those facts, ever ven- 
tured to deny them ; that no apostate disciple, under the 
fear of punishment, or the hope of reward, not even the 
artful and accomplished Julian himself, ever pretended to 
detect them ; that neither learning nor ingenuity, in the 
long lapse of so many years, has been able to show their 
falsehood ; though for the first three centuries after their 
promulgation the civil government strongly stimulated 
hostile inquiry ; and that their original relaters, after lives 
of uninterrupted hardship, joyfully incurred death in defence 
of their truth, — we cannot imagine the possibility of a more 
perfect or abundant demonstration. 

It now rests with the deists, if they would vindicate 
their claim to the self-bestowed title of " men of reason^^"* 
to adduce some matters of fact of former ages, which they 
allow to be true, possessing evidence superior, or even 
similar, to those of Christ. This, however, it must at the 
same time be observed, would be far from proving the 



282 watson's theological institutes 

matters of fact respecting Christ tt) be false ; but certainly 
without this they cannot reasonably assert that their own 
facts alone, so much less powerfully attested, are true. 
Let them produce their Csesar, or Mohammed, 

1. Performmg a fact, of which men's outward senses 
can judge : ^ 

2. Publicly^ in the presence of witnesses : 

3. In memory of which public monuments and actions 
are kept up : 

4. Instituted and commencing at the time of the fact : 

5. Recorded likewise in a set of books, addressed to 
the identical people before whom it was performed, and 
containing their whole code of civil and ecclesiastical laws : 

6. As the work of one previously announced for that 
very period hj a long train oi prophecies : 

7. And still more peculiarly prefigured by types, both 
of a circumstantial and personal nature, from the earliest 
ages: and, 

8. Of such a character as made it impossible for either 
the relaters or hearers to believe it, if false, without sup- 
posing a universal deception of the senses of manJcind. 

Farther : let them display, in its professed eye-witnesses, 
similar proofs of veracity ; in some doctrines founded upon 
it, and unaided by force or intrigue, a like triumph over 
the prejudices and passio7is of mankind: among its believ- 
ers, equal skill and equal diligence in scrutinizing its evi- 
dences, OK LET THEM SUBMIT TO THE lEBESISTIBLE CERTAINTY 

OP THE Christian religion. 

And now, reader, solemnly consider what that religion 
is, the truth of which is proved by so many decisive marks. 
It is a declared revelation from God ; pronounces all men 
guilty in his sight ; proclaims pardon as his free gift through 
the meritorious righteousness, sacrifice, and intercession of 



AJJOD THE BIBLE DEFENDED. 283 

his only Son, to all wlio trust alone in his mercy and grace, 
cordially repenting and forsaking their sins ; requires fer- 
vent love, ardent zeal, and cordial submission toward him- 
self, and the highest degree of personal purity and temper- 
ance, with rectitude and benevolence toward others ; and 
offers the aid of the Holy Spirit for these purposes to all 
who sincerely ask it. Consider^ this religion is the only 
true one, and this is tremendously true : — while it promises 
peace on earth and eternal happiness to all who do receive 
and obey it, it denounces everlasting destruction against all 
who do not. It is in vain for you to admit its truth unless 
you receive it as your confidence, and obey it as your rule. 
O study, O embrace it for yourself; and may the God of 
love and peace be with you ! Amen. 



THE END. 




Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



6^\ ^U 

W L 



